■^f£S 


PA 

6602 

F46 

1921 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    DMD    MSS 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT 
IN  PLAUTUS 


A  DISSERTATION  PRESENTED  TO  THE 

GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  YALE  UNIVERSITY 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

BY 

DANIEL  H.  FENTON 


NEW  HAVEN 

PRINTED  AT  THE  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

MDCCCCXXI 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT 
IN  PLAUTUS 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT 
IN  PLAUTUS 

A  DISSERTATION  PRESENTED  TO  THE 

GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  YALE  UNIVERSITY 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

BY 

DANIEL  H.  FENTON 


NEW  HAVEN 

PRINTED  AT  THE  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

MDCCCCXXI 


COPYRIGHT  1920  BY 
YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


CONTENTS 

I.  INTRODUCTION.  7 

II.  EXPOSITION.  9 

A.  EQUIVALENT  REPETITIONS.  9 

1.  Without  interruption.  9 

a.  For  iteration — with  or  without  change  in  form.  9 

b.  For  defining — with  or  without  change  in  form.  16 

2.  Merely  resumptive  after  interruption — for  iteration.  21 

B.  GENERAL— PARTICULAR.  22 

1.  Indefinite  statement  made  specific.  23 

2.  General  statement  analyzed.  26 

3.  General  statement  illustrated.    •  26 

C.  PARTICULAR  STATEMENT  FOLLOWED  BY  GENERAL 

EXPRESSION.                   -»  27 

D.  SUMMARY  OF  DETAILS.  29 

E.  NEGATIVE-AFFIRMATIVE.    AFFIRMATIVE-NEGATIVE.     30 

1.  Negative-affirmative.  31 

2.  Affirmative-negative.  -i^i^ 

III.   STYLISTIC  VARIATIONS  IN  USE.  39 

A.  EMPLOYMENT  OF  THE  CLASSES  DISCUSSED  IN  II.  39 

1.  a-b-a-b.  39 

2.  a-b-b-a.  43 
3-  a-b-a.  46 

4.  Play  on  vi^ords.  47 

IV.  DOUBLE  REPETITIONS.  48 

V.  CONCLUSION.  55 


44GC42 


I.  INTRODUCTION 

ylTTENTION  has  been  called  by  various  writers — notably  by  Langen 
jt\.  in  his  Plautinische  Studien  and  by  Lorenz  in  his  introduction  to  the 
Pseudolus — to  repetition  of  thought  as  one  of  the  characteristics  in  the 
style  of  Plautus.  Lorenz  writes  in  his  introduction  to  the  Mostellaria,  p.  23, 
"daneben  geht  aber  audi  ein  fortwahrendes  Streben  nach  Deutlichkeit, 
welches  sich  im  Feuer  und  Eifer  der  Rede — Luft  macht  in — Wieder- 
holungen,  Verstarkungen  durch  Synonyme,  tautologischen  Umschrei- 
bungen,  starken  Erhohungen  und  anderen  Mitteln  zur  Emphase  und  zur 
erschopfenden  Bezeichnung  eines  Gedankens.  Durch  alle  diese  Bestre- 
bungen  entsteht  eine  gewisse  Breite  im  Dialoge,  die  aber  weit  enfernt,  der 
Lebhaftigkeit  desselben  Eintrag  zu  thun,  sie  gerade  befordert."  This  is 
as  far  as  any  study  of  repetitions  has  been  carried.  No  attempt  has  been 
made  to  classify  the  numerous  repetitions  of  thought  in  order  definitely 
to  fix  the  part  which  they  play  in  characterizing  the  style  of  Plautus. 

In  considering  repetitions  we  must  distinguish  between  the  dialogue 
and  the  monologues.  In  the  cantica  we  have  only  the  speaker  to  consider 
but  in  the  dialogue  we  must  consider  both  the  speaker  and  the  listener, 
that  is,  the  repetition  must  be  viewed  psychologically  from  the  view- 
point of  the  speaker  as  well  as  from  that  of  the  listener.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  speaker's  chief  aim  in  repeating  a  thought  may  be  to  clarify  that 
thought  for  the  benefit  of  the  listener.  But  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that 
this  is  the  sole  end  of  a  repetition — to  produce  "intensity,  emphasis,  and 
distinctness  of  expression."  These  may  be  the  chief  and  obvious  results 
but  the  important  things  to  consider  are  the  means  by  which  these  results 
are  produced.  The  speaker  does  not  desire  merely  to  repeat  his  thought  in 
the  same  words  but  to  vary  the  form  and  wording.  By  these  means  he  may 
impress  the  thought  still  more  strongly  on  the  listener  but  the  desire  in 
his  own  mind  is  for  variety.  If  he  has  expressed  a  thought  negatively,  he 
may  feel  the  desire  to  express  it  affirmatively  or  vice  versa.  Again  he 
may  have  expressed  one  thought,  then  changed  to  another,  yet,  feeling 
the  importance  of  the  first,  he  may  go  back  to  that  and  then  finally  may 
repeat  the  second  statement.  It  is  possible,  then,  to  group  the  cases  of  rep- 
etition into  classes,  more  or  less  clearly  differentiated,  some  simple,  others 
more  complicated,  and  thus  to  show  the  relation  that  these  repetitions 
have  to  the  general  subject  of  the  style  of  Plautus. 

The  most  common  and  obvious  class  is  that  in  which  there  is  an  almost 
exact  repetition  of  a  thought.  But  even  here  there  is  considerable  vari- 
ation. There  is  first  that  class  in  which  a  thought  is  repeated  by  a  speaker 
without  any  interruption  from  another  speaker.  Within  this  class  there 
are  two  distinct  divisions.  The  one  is  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the 


8  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

;f0rm;of  the  repetition  is  similar  to  that  of  the  original  statement  while 
the  other  is  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  form  does  not  correspond 
to  that  of  the  original  statement.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  in  con- 
sidering this  class  that  the  repetition  of  the  thought  is  the  important  fact 
while  similarity  of  form  is  only  a  by-product.  But  an  equivalent  repeti- 
tion— with  or  without  change  in  form — may  also  be  made  after  an  in- 
terruption from  another  speaker.  Here  the  repetition  is  merely  resumptive 
after  an  interruption.  In  both  these  forms  of  equivalent  repetition  the  aim 
is  to  emphasize  a  statement  by  iteration  with  an  underlying  desire  to  vary 
the  expression. 

There  are  two  classes  of  repetition  which  have  a  closer  relation  to  the 
style  of  Plautus  than  the  preceding  which  would  be  characteristic  of  dia- 
logue in  general.  One  is  the  cla.ss  in  which  we  find  an  analysis  of  a  general 
statement — that  is,  a  speaker  makes  a  general  statement  and  then  analyzes 
this  into  the  particular  facts.  The  other  is  that  in  which  we  find  a  particu- 
lar statement  which  is  repeated  and  made  more  general. 

A  fourth  class  is  that  in  which  a  speaker  repeats  merely  to  give  a  sum- 
mary of  the  details  which  he  wishes  to  impress  on  the  listener.  Here  he 
gives  the  particular  facts  and  follows  them  up  with  a  general  statement. 
A  fifth  class  is  that  in  which  a  speaker  has  first  made  a  negative  state- 
ment and  then  repeats  this  thought  affirmatively.  On  the  other  hand  a 
speaker  may  make  an  affirmative  statement  which  he  repeats  negatively. 
Here  the  desire  for  variety  is  the  strong  point.  We  find,  therefore,  five 
distinct  classes  of  repetition.  First,  the  equivalent  repetition — both  with 
interruption  and  without ;  second,  the  analj^sis  of  a  general  statement ; 
third,  the  exemplification  of  a  general  statement;  fourth,  the  summary  of 
details ;  fifth,  a  negative  repeated  by  an  affirmative  and  vice  versa. 

The  classes  of  repetition  which  have  been  pointed  out  above  are  of  the 
kind  into  Avhich  most  of  the  repetitions  of  everyday  speech  fall.  We  con- 
stantly repeat  and  any  lecturer,  to  bring  home  his  point,  is  prone  to  re- 
peat an  important  idea.  Although  the  repetition  of  this  thought  baldly, 
without  variety,  would  bring  home  the  point,  the  best  emphasis  is  that 
which  is  given  to  a  statement  by  repeating  the  thought  but  with  variety 
in  the  form  and  expression  of  it.  These  general  classes  are  open  to  various 
stylistic  variations  and  the  exceptions  to  these  classes  will  be  noted  in 
treating  the  classes  but  will  be  considered  at  length  later  in  the  paper. 

There  are,  howe\er,  in  Plautus  numerous  cases  of  repetitions  which 
in  lieu  of  a  better  designation  we  may  call  "double  repetitions."  Here 
the  speaker  makes  a  statement  which  is  jepeated  twice  so  that  he  has  at 
the  end  made  the  same  statement  three  times — but  usually  with  sufficient 
variety  in  the  form  or  figure  to  prevent  the  repetitions  from  being  inane. 
This  class  will  be  treated  by  itself  since,  with  the  exception  of  the  fact  of 
the  double  repetition,  the  other  characteristics  of  this  class  are  those 
which  characterize  the  first  five  classes. 


11.  EXPOSITION 

A.  EQUIVALENT  REPETITIONS 

EVEN  the  most  casual  reader  of  Plautus  must  have  noticed  that  a 
speaker  often  repeats  his  thought  in  the  exact  language  of  or  at  least 
in  form  very  close  to  the  first  statement.  This  class  of  repetition,  simple 
and  obvious  as  it  appears  to  be,  repays  some  closer  consideration  in  the 
light  that  it  throws  upon  the  more  complicated  and  less  obvious  forms  of 
repetition.  There  are  also  certain  characteristics  of  this  class  which  pre- 
vent the  repetition  from  being  treated  as  dittography.  The  repetition  in 
this  class  is  not  haphazard.  It  is  often  made  more  probable  and  almost 
necessary  by  an  interruption  of  another  speaker  or,  if  no  such  interruption 
occurs,  the  repetition  is  expressed  in  such  different  language  or  in  such  a 
different  form  that  the  variety  of  language  or  construction  gives  a  de- 
sired variety  to  the  expression.  The  result  aimed  at  and  produced  is  em- 
phasis by  iteration  or  by  definition.  This  class  may  then  be  divided  into 
the  two  divisions  :  first,  repetition  without  interruption  and  second,  repeti- 
tion which  is  merely  resumptive  after  an  interruption.  In  the  first  division 
we  find  repetitions  where  the  form  remains  the  same  and  repetitions 
where  the  form  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  original  statement.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  the  repetitions  of  this  class  are  first  treated  in  formal  di- 
visions and  then  treated  subjectively. 

I.  Without  Interruption. 

a.  For  iteration — ivith  or  zvitJiout  change  in  form. 

The  first  class  of  repetition  is  perhaps  the  simplest  to  understand.  The 
repetition  is  very  close  to  the  original  statement  though  the  form  may 
change.  Furthermore  this  class  is  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the 
repetition  is  made  for  iteration  without  any  defining  element.  A  very 
simple  example  is  Mostel,  619  f.  :  "tu  iube  /  obicere  argentum  ob  os  im- 
purae  beluae  /  lube  homini  argento  os  verberarier."  The  second  sentence 
beginning  with  lube  merely  reiterates  the  command  and  adds  nothing 
to  the  original  statement.  In  actual  fact  the  first  statement  is  the  stronger 
of  the  two  as  Tranio  there  characterizes  the  Danista  as  impurae  beluae. 
In  the  Stichus,  408  ff.,  Epignomus  says,  "Nam  iam  Antiphonem  con- 
veni  adfinem  meum  /  cumque  eo  reveni  ex  inimicitia  in  gratiam."  A  few 
lines  later  he  repeats  with  "in  amicitiam  atque  in  gratiam  convortimus." 
Nothing  is  added  to  the  original  statement  although  between  this  and  the 
repetition  Epignomus  has  given  the  reason  why  he  and  Antipho  are 
friends  again — because  he  himself  has  returned  home  with  wealth.  These 


10  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

two  examples  are  taken  from  the  diverbia.  The  following  is  from  the 
monologue  of  Philolaches,  Mostellaria,  103  f.,  "  laudant  fabrum  atque 
aedes  probant,  sibi  /  quisque  inde  exemplum  expetunt."  He  repeats  with 
"sibi  quisque  similis  \olt  suas."  This  is  only  one  example  of  numerous 
cases  of  repetition  in  this  canticum  which  might  be  taken  as  a  type  of  a 
canticum  in  which  statements  are  repeated  ad  nauseam.  Philolaches 
throughout  repeats  unimportant  statements  and  nowhere  in  Plautus  can  a 
more  tiresome  canticum  be  found.  Yet  these  repetitions  have  a  distinct 
place  in  portraying  the  character  of  Philolaches  who  is  a  weak  inefficient 
young  man.  He  has  hit  upon  the  parable  of  the  house  and  overdoes  the 
comparison  which  might  be  forceful  enough  if  made  in  simple  terms.  In 
the  same  canticum  Philolaches  soliloquizes  (1.  107)  "hie  iam  aedibus 
vitium  additur,  bonae  quom  curantur  male."  He  then  describes  the  effect 
of  the  storm  and  finally  at  113  repeats  his  first  general  statement,  "  ne- 
quior  f actus  iam  est  usus  aedium."  Here  the  repetition  is  close  but  the 
form  is  different  from  that  of  the  original  statement.  Another  example  of 
repetition  for  iteration  in  which  the  form  is  different  though  the  repeti- 
tion is  close  to  the  original  statement  occurs  in  the  Men.,  87  f.,  where 
Peniculus  gives  directions  for  keeping  your  slaves  satisfied  "quem  tu 
adservare  recte  ne  aufugiat  voles  /  esca  atque  potione  vinciri  debet."  He 
repeats  this  last  under  a  different  form  in  the  next  line  "  apud  mensam 
plenam  homini  rostrum  deliges."  In  the  Stichus,  276  f.,  Pinacium  ex- 
claims, "itaque  onustum  pectus  porto  laetitia  lubentiaque."  Then  in  1.  279 
changing  the  form  he  repeats  this  statement  "  ripisque  superat  mi  atque 
abundat  pectus  laetitia  meum."  Subjectively  all  six  examples  belong  to  the 
same  class  of  repetition  for  iteration,  while  formally  the  first  three  differ 
from  the  last  three  in  the  fact  that  in  the  first  the  form  of  the  repetition  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  original  statement,  in  the  last  there  is  a  distinct 
change  in  the  form  and  wording. 

When  the  repetition  is  not  so  close  to  the  original  statement  as  in  the 
examples  given,  the  formal  difference  is  of  course  the  most  obvious.  In 
the  Most.  427  Tranio  boasts  "ludos  ego  hodie  vivo  praesenti  hie  seni 
faciam."  In  line  430  he  repeats  this  statement  "unde  advenienti  sarcinam 
imponam  seni."  Here  the  repetition  shows  a  distinct  change  in  figure  and 
while  it  merely  repeats  the  thought  for  iteration,  yet  the  formal  difference 
is  quite  clear.  In  the  True,  215  f.,  Astaphium  soliloquizes,  "verum  apud 
hunc  mea  era  sua  consilia  summa  eloquitur  libere."  The  thought  is  re- 
peated not  closely  but  with  a  different  form  in  "magisque  adeo  ei  con- 
siliarius  hie  amicust  quam  auxiliarius."  A  very  distinct  example  occurs 
in  the  Pseudolus,  448  f.,  "iam  istaec  insipientiast,  /  viam  in  propromptu 
gerere."  He  then  repeats  under  a  very  different  form  with  "quanto  satius 
est/adire  blandis  verbis  atque  exquirere."  In  the  first  example  there 
was  a  distinct  change  of  figure.  In  this  last  example  the  speaker,  in  addi- 
tion to  repeating  his  statement,  does  put  the  other  side  of  the  situation 
more  distinctly — first  what  you  ought  not  to  do  and  then  what  you  ought 
to  do.  In  all  three  cases  the  formal  difference  in  the  repetition  is  clear.  On 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  ii 

the  other  hand  there  are  very  few  examples  in  which  the  repetition  is  not 
close  and  in  which  the  form  remains  the  same  as  that  of  the  original  state- 
ment. The  only  case  found  which  clearly  falls  under  this  division  is  in  the 
True,  200  f.,  where  Astaphium  says  "celabat  metuebatque  te,  ne  tu  sibi 
persuaderes  /  ut  abortioni  operam  daret  puerumque  ut  enicaret."  Here 
the  form  of  "puerumque  ut  enicaret"  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  original 
statement  but  it  adds  nothing  important  to  the  "abortioni  operam  dabat" 
even  though  the  expression  is  quite  different. 

One  of  the  commonest  classes  of  repetition  found  in  Plautus  is  that  in 
which  the  formal  repetition  is  so  close  that  the  iteration  shows  a  close 
balance  with  the  original  statement.  Here  we  find  the  examples  ranging 
from  a  very  close  word  for  word  balance  to  a  balance  in  which  the  repeti- 
tion verbally  varies  considerably  from  the  original  statement.  In  the  Most. 
504,  Tranio  reports  that  the  ghost  said  "scelestae  hae  sunt  aedes,  impia 
est  habitatio."  Here  the  balance  is  very  close.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
Rudens,  197,  "sed  erile  scelus  me  soUicitat,  eius  me  impietas  male  habet." 
The  balance  is  not  so  close  in  such  an  example  as  Pseu.  687,  "sed  iam  satis 
est  philosophatum.  nimis  diu  et  longum  loquor,"  while  in  the  Most.  184  f., 
though  the  balance  is  preserved,  yet  such  variety  is  given  to  the  repetition 
that  the  latter  is  made  more  complicated  than  the  original  statement. 
Philolaches  says,  "infecta  dona  facio/periisti."  Then  he  repeats  this 
statement  with  "quod  promiseram  tibi  dono  perdidisti."  In  the  repetition 
the  perdidisti  balances  the  infecta  jacio  while  the  dona  of  the  origi- 
inal  statement  is  repeated  in  the  quod  promiseram  tibi  dono.  That  the 
sense  of  rhythm  and  proportion  was  so  strong  that  the  balance-phrase — 
verb-noun — phrase  was  intentional  cannot  be  asserted.  But  it  is  obvious 
in  such  a  repetition  that  the  periisti  is  the  controlling  word.  Philolaches' 
repetition  of  the  infecta  dona  facio  is  made  more  plausible  and  almost 
necessary  by  the  periisti.  He  says,  "1  take  back  my  gifts"  but  then  adds 
"you  are  lost" — but  to  end  thus  would  leave  little  emphasis  on  the  gift, 
so  he  repeats  "what  I  had  promised  you — you  have  lost."  Thus  the  peri- 
isti makes  clearer  the  balance  between  the  two  clauses.  To  have  balance 
between  the  original  statement  and  the  repetition,  the  form  must  of  course 
remain  the  same,  but  there  are  a  very  few  cases  where  the  form  changes. 
In  the  M.  G.  506  f.  Periplectomenus  upbraids  Sceledrus,  "quodque  inde 
inspectavisti  meum  apud  me  hospitem  /  amplexum  amicum,  quom  oscula- 
batur,  suam."  Here  the  participle  amplexum  is  repeated  in  the  quom 
clause.  Another  example  occurs  in  the  As.  802,  "pulchre  scripsti !"  Then 
the  parasite  repeats  this  thought  in  an  ejaculation  "scitum  syngraphum !" 

One  of  the  most  frequent  forms  of  repetition  is  that  in  which  the 
thought  is  first  expressed  in  a  clause  and  is  then  repeated  in  a  single  word. 
Of  course  the  inverse  order  may  occur.  First  there  are  examples  in  which 
a  clause  is  balanced  by  a  noun.  In  the  Most.  484  f.  Tranio  explains  to 
Theopropides  "ut  foris  cenaverat  /  tuos  gnatus,  postquam  rediit  a  cena 
domum."  The  ut  clause  is  repeated  in  a  cena.  A  better  example  occurs 
in  the  Pseudolus  427  f.,  "homines  qui  gestant  quique  auscultant  crimina  /, 


12  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

si  meo  arbitratu  liccat,  omnes  pendeant."  Then  the  thought  of  the  qui 
clauses  is  repeated  in  the  next  line  "gestores  Unguis,  auditores  auribus." 
While  in  this  last  example  a  relative  clause  is  balanced  by  a  noun,  the 
example  is  quite  different  from  such  a  case  as  Captivi  343,  "qui  tua  quae 
tu  iusseris  mandata  ita  ut  velis  perferat."  In  this  type,  of  which  there 
are  a  great  many  examples  in  Plautus,  the  relative  clause  is  felt  to  be  re- 
dundant. In  this  class  of  repetition  the  form  naturally  differs  and  the  ex- 
amples given  show  repetition  for  iteration. 

In  the  Aul.  191,  Euclio  complains  "virginem  habeo  grandem,  dote 
cassam  atque  inlocabilem."  He  repeats  the  thought  of  inlocabilcm  in 
a  negative  sentence  "neque  eam  queo  locare  quoiquam."  This  merely 
iterates  and  does  not  define  any  more  clearly  the  thought  expressed  in 
the  adjective.  The  adjective  is  clear  enough  without  the  repetition.  The 
same  is  true  of  Per.  622,  "ah,  di  istam  perdant !  ita  catast  et  callida  /  ut 
sapiens  habet  cor,  quam  dicit  quod  opust."  From  what  has  happened  and 
been  said  previously  the  meani-ng  of  the  adjectives  is  clear  enough  for  us 
to  regard  the  repetition  in  the  ut  and  quam  clauses  as  iteration  rather  than 
definition.  In  the  Stichus  538  the  order  is  reversed,  "priusquam  abis, 
praesente  ted  huic  apologum  agere  unum  volo."  An  example  similar  to 
the  last  noun  example  occurs  in  the  Mer.  227,  "velut  ego  nocte  hac  quae 
praeteriit  proxima."  Here  the  relative  clause  is  felt  to  be  redundant  and 
superfluous. 

There  are  also  a  few  examples  in  which  the  thought  of  an  adverb  is 
repeated  in  a  clause  as  in  the  Poe.  662  f.,  "at  enim  hie  clam,  furtum  esse 
volt."  The  thought  of  clam  and  furtum  is  then  repeated  in  "ne  quis  sciat 
neve  arbiter  sit."  This  is  the  best  example  of  this  class  of  repetition  which 
does  not  occur  as  often  as  the  others — the  noun  and  adjective.  Another 
example  occurs  in  the  Most.  657  f.  where  Tranio  abuses  the  Danista, 
"nullum  edepol  hodie  genus  est  hominum  taetrius."  He  repeats  the 
thought  of  taetrius  in  "nee  minus  bono  cum  iure  quam  danisticum."  The 
examples  in  which  the  thought  of  a  verb  is  repeated  in  a  clause  are  also 
few  in  Plautus.  The  best  example  found  is  in  the  Bacc.  1191  "age  iam, 
id  ut  est,  etsi  est  dedecori,  patiar."  Then  Nicobulus  repeats  patiar  in 
"facere  inducam  animum."  Most  of  the  examples  however  are  much 
simpler  than  this.  Take  Pseu.  230  where  Pseudolus  says  "audio,  ere,  equi- 
dem  atque  animum  adverto"  or  True.  125,  "tuis  servio  atque  audiens 
sum  imperils."  These  two  examples,  characteristic  of  this  class  in  general, 
are  so  simple  and  obvious  that  they  are  mentioned  only  to  form  an 
analogy  with  the  previous  classes  of  a  single  word  balanced  by  a  clause. 

Probably  the  most  obvious  and  common  type  of  repetition  is  that  in 
which  a  single  word — noun,  adjective  or  verb — is  repeated  in  another 
word  of  the  same  kind.  Yet  even  here  there  is  a  wide  variety.  In  the  Stichus 
215  f.  Gelasimus  complains  "prae  maerore  adeo  miser  atque  aegritudine/ 
consenui."  In  this  example  aegritudine  is  merely  a  synonym  for  maerore 
but  this  use  of  synonyms  is,  as  Lorenz  has  noticed,  one  of  the  means  of 
repetition  in  Plautus.  It  is  a  common  type  and  while  stylistically  it  may 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  13 

not  differentiate  the  style  of  Plautus  from  other  writers,  it  often  shows 
considerable  variation  from  this  rather  bald  use.  In  the  Poe.  1062  f. 
Hanno  asks  "ecquid  meministi  tuom  parentum  nomina  /  patris  atque 
matrisf"  A  variation  of  this  is  found  in  Cis.  718,  "Nunc  eam  volt  suae 
matri  et  patri,  /  quibus  natu  est,  reddere  ultro."  Sometimes  Plautus  varies 
the  use  of  synonyms  still  more  as  in  Men.  1 102  where  Messenio  says 
"Spes  mihi  est  vos  inventurum  fratres  germanos  duos  /  geminos,  una 
matre  natos  et  patre  uno  uno  die."  This  last  example  shows  considerable 
development  from  the  use  of  single  words.  Yet  in  no  one  of  these  exam- 
ples does  the  repetition  do  anything  more  than  iterate  an  idea  which  is 
clear  enough  without  the  repetition.  It  will  also  be  noticed  that  the  form 
of  the  repetition  changes  in  the  second  example  but  remains  the  same  in 
the  other  cases.  In  this  class  the  proportion  of  those  cases  in  which  there 
is  a  formal  difference  to  those  in  which  there  is  no  change  is  represented 
about  correctly  by  the  examples  given — that  is,  the  ratio  is  one  to  three. 

The  use  of  synonyms  is  much  more  pronounced  in  the  case  of  verbs  than 
it  is  in  the  above  discussed  case  of  nouns.  Most.  83  f.  offers  the  best  ex- 
ample of  this  kind  of  repetition.  "  Recordatus  multum  et  diu  cogitavi  / 
argumentaque  in  pectus  multa  institui  /  ego  atque  in  meo  corde  si  est 
quod  mihi  cor, /eam  rem  volutavi  et  diu  disputavi."  Here  the  same  idea  is 
expressed  five  times.  The  inultiiin  is  taken  up  by  the  viiclta  and  the  diu 
is  also  repeated.  There  is  variation  in  the  repetition  however.  First  we 
have  verb  and  adverb  repeated  by  verb  and  adverb.  Then  the  same 
thought  is  repeated  twice  by  verb  and  noun,  with  a  final  repetition  by 
verb  and  verb.  There  is,  then,  not  merely  a  repetition  by  synonyms  but 
some  attempt  is  made  to  vary  the  expression.  In  the  Trin.  130  f.  and  in 
the  Captivi  555  f.  are  two  examples  closely  analogous  to  each  other.  In 
the  first  Megaronides  asks  "quid  secus  est  aut  quid  interest  dare  te  in 
manus?"  In  the  second  Hegio  says  "quibus  insputari  saluti  fuit  atque  is 
profuit."  There  is  this  difference  between  the  two  examples.  In  the  first 
there  is  an  adverb  and  verb,  in  the  second  a  noun  and  verb.  But  each  is  re- 
peated by  a  single  verb.  In  each  example  the  form  of  the  repetition 
differs  from  that  of  the  original.  In  the  Bacc.  492  ff.  the  form  remains  the 
same,  "viden  ut  aegre  patitur  gnatum  esse  corruptum  tuom,/suomsodalem 
ut  ipsus  sese  cruciat  aegritudine!"  In  all  the  examples  noticed,  the  second 
verb  is  synonymous  with  the  first  and  does  not  require  any  modifying 
word  to  make  this  clear.  In  the  Cis  160  f.  the  expression  is  much  more 
varied,  "ilico  /  pedibus  perfugium  peperit,  in  Lemnum  aufugit."  Here 
there  is  a  sort  of  drop  from  the  high-sounding  bombastic  phrase  to  the 
simple  verb. 

Analogous  to  the  repetition  of  nouns  and  verbs  is  the  repetition  of  ad- 
jectives. But  here  there  is  no  variety,  no  change  in  form,  no  attempt  to 
do  anything  except  to  give  a  synonym  for  an  adjective  which  requires  no 
explanation.  In  the  Most.  476  Tranio  exclaims,  "scelus,  inquam,  factum 
est  iam  diu,  antiquom  et  vetus."  In  the  Poe.  1030  f.  Hanno  explains 
"servom  hercle  te  esse  oportet  et  nequam  et  malum,/  hominem  peregri- 


14  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  Ix\  PLAUTUS 

num  atque  advenam  qui  inrideas."  Here  the  balance  is  noticeable  be- 
tween the  two  sets  of  repetition.  In  the  Poe.  1240  occurs  a  repetition 
which  is  very  common  in  Plautus  because  of  the  character  of  a  great  many 
of  his  plots.  Hanno  swears  "atque  equidem  ingenuas  liberas  summoque 
genere  gnatas."  A  great  many  examples  of  this  repetition  of  ingenuas 
and  liberas  may  be  found  in  Plautus.  In  the  Trin.  1096,  Callicles  uses 
three  different  adjectives  and  then  a  phrase  '"'probo  et  fideli  et  fido  et  cum 
magna  fide."  Evidently  having  given  a  synonym  for  probo,  he  tries  to 
see  how  many  variations  he  can  find  for  fideli,  keeping  to  the  same  root. 
There  is  no  defining  element  in  this  adjectival  repetition  nor  is  there  any 
change  in  form  except  in  this  last  example  where  the  simple  adjective  is 
varied  by  an  adjective  and  noun  with  a  preposition. 

There  are  three  classes  of  repetition  in  which  the  form  always  remains 
the  same,  but  in  which  there  are  examples  of  both  the  iteration  and  de- 
fining types.  These  three  classes  comprise  instances  of  imperatives,  con- 
ditional clauses  and  questions.  The  first  two  are  the  most  important.  In 
the  class  in  which  the  imperative  form  is  retained  in  the  repetition  there 
is  some  variation.  We  find  the  simple  type  of  Stichus  281  "propera, 
Pinacium,  pedes  hortare"  varied  in  such  an  example  as  Most.  461  where 
Tranio  cries  "  Fuge,  obsecro,  atque  abscede  ab  aedibus.  /  Fuge  hue,  fuge 
ad  me  propius."  Here  "Fuge"  is  repeated  but  although  the  action  of 
"abscede  ab  aedibus"  is  the  same  as  that  of  "fuge  ad  me  propius,"  yet  the 
first  emphasizes  the  person  spoken  to,  the  listener,  while  the  second  em- 
phasizes the  speaker.  In  the  Most.  10  ff.  Grumio  threatens  "patiar,  sine 
modo  adveniat  senex  /.  Sine  modo  venire  salvom  quern  apsentem  comes." 
Here  there  is  some  change  in  the  form  as  the  subjunctive  adveniat 
changes  to  the  infinitive  venire.  In  these  three  examples  the  repetition 
keeps  the  form  of  the  original  statement — the  imperative — and  merely 
reiterates  the  idea,  but  there  is  variation  since  in  some  cases  there  is  rep- 
etition merely  of  a  single  imperative  while  in  others  the  imperative  is 
repeated  with  a  variation  in  the  subordinate  elements. 

In  the  following  class  the  form  changes  but  the  repetition  merely 
iterates  the  first  statement.  The  characteristic  of  this  class  is  the  occur- 
rence of  a  conditional  form.  In  the  Trin.  567  Stasimus  says  "de  istoc 
quod  dixti  modo:  /  si  ante  voluisses,  esses:"  He  then  repeats  this  condi- 
tion with  "nunc  sero  cupis."  But  the  repetition  may  also  take  the  form 
of  a  question  as  in  the  Capt.  529  f.  "neque  iam  Salus  servare,  si  volt,  me 
potest,  nee  copia  est,/  nisi  si  aliquam  corde  machinor  astutiam."  He  then 
repeats  this  condition  in  the  form  of  a  rhetorical  question  "quam,  malum? 
quid  machiner?  quid  comminiscar?" 

Another  type  in  which  the  form  of  the  repetition  differs  from  that  of 
the  original  is  that  in  which  there  is  a  change  in  the  person  of  the  expres- 
sion ;  that  is,  the  original  statement  describes  an  action  in  reference  to  the 
speaker,  the  repetition  iterates  this  same  action  in  reference  to  another 
person.  In  the  Epi.  91  f.  Epidicus  exclaims  "  Corium  perdidi."  Then  in 
the  next  line  "virgis  dorsum  dispoliet  meum."  The  same  is  true  of  Bacc. 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  15 

146,  "immo  neque  habebis  neque  sinam."  In  Men.  107 1  ff.  Messenio  cries 
"novi  equidem  hunc !  erus  est  mens."  He  repeats  this  thouglit  with  "ego 
quidem  huius  servos  sum."  Nothing  is  defined  in  these  examples.  There 
is  merely  a  change  in  person. 

In  the  classes  of  repetition  so  far  considered  there  has  been  no  one 
word,  the  occurrence  of  which  might  be  said  to  characterize  a  certain 
type  of  repetition.  The  next  two  classes  are  characterized  by  such  a  word — 
the  one  by  nam,  the  other  by  ita.  In  the  Mer.  980  Eutychus  says  "quern 
quidem  hercle  ego,  in  exsilium  quom  iret,  redduxi  domum."  Then  he  re- 
peats the  quom  clause  with  "nam  ibat  exsulatum."  In  this  repetition  the 
form  changes  but  the  nam  clause  has  no  defining  or  explanatory  force. 
It  merely  iterates  the  idea.  In  the  Most.  760  f.  Tranio  says  "nunc  hinc 
exemplum  capere  volt  nisi  tu  nevis."  Then  he  repeats  this  thought  with 
"nam  ille  eo  maiore  hinc  opere  ex  te  exemplum  petit."  In  this  example  the 
form  remains  the  same  but  again  there  is  no  explanatory  idea.  In  the 
True.  16  occurs  "poscendo  atque  auferendo,  ut  mos  est  mulierum  /  nam 
omnes  id  faciunt,  quom  se  amari  intellegunt."  Even  here  the  nam  omnes 
id  faciunt  merely  reiterates  the  idea  contained  in  the  ut  mos  clause. 
Another  type  of  this  repetition  is  that  in  which  a  general  statement  is 
given  a  particular  application  in  a  Jiam  clause.  But  here  one  may  question 
whether  the  iterating  element  in  the  repetition  is  stronger  than  the  de- 
fining element.  In  the  Trin.  23  ff.  Megaronides  asserts  "amicum  casti- 
gare  ob  meritam  noxiam  /  inmoene  est  facinus,  verum  in  aetate  utile  / 
et  conducibile — nam  ego  amicum  hodie  meum  /  concastigabo  pro  com- 
'merita  noxia,/  invitus,  ni  id  me  invitet  ut  faciam  fides."  It  seems  that  in 
such  a  repetition  the  defining  element  is  not  very  strong.  There  may  be 
some  element  of  it  in  such  a  repetition — almost  of  necessity — but  the 
repetition  is  on  the  whole  merely  one  of  iteration.  There  are  also  numer- 
ous examples  which  fall  in  with  the  above  except  that  there  is  no  nam  in 
the  repetition.  Take  Poe.  802  f.  "non  sum  nequiquam  miles  factus;  paul- 
lulum  /  praedae  intus  feci ;  dum  lenonis  familia  /  dormitat,  extis  sum 
satur  factus  probe."  The  thought  is  iterated  but  not  defined  any  more 
clearly  than  in  the  original  paulbdum  etc.  Most.  532  f.  has  a  certain  de- 
fining element  but  on  the  whole  merely  iterates.  The  Danista  complains 
"scelestiorem  ego  annum  argento  faenori  /  numquam  ullum  vidi  quam 
hie  mihi  annus  optigit."  He  repeats  with  "a  mani  ad  noctem  usque  in  foro 
dego  diem,/  locare  argenti  nemini  nummum  queo." 

Similar  in  character  to  those  repetitions  in  which  the  repetition 
is  marked  by  nam,  are  those  cases  in  which  an  ita  appears  in  the 
repetition.  In  the  Mer.  94  f.  Charinus  says  "lucrum  ingens  facio  praeter- 
quam  mihi  mens  pater  /  dedit  aestumatas  mercis."  Then  he  repeats  with 
"ita  peculium  conficio  grande"  which  merely  iterates  his  first  statement, 
adding  nothing  to  it.  Noticeable  is  the  balance  between  lucrum 
and  peculium,  ingens  and  grande,  facio  and  conficio.  Another  example 
of  balance  is  shown  in  the  Pseu.  299  f.  "nimis  miser  sum,  nummum 
nusquam  reperire  argento  queo;  /  ita  miser  et  amore  pereo  et  inopia 


i6  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

argentaria."  Here  however  "amore  pereo"  does  add  something  to  the 
original  miser.  The  greater  number  of  the  examples  of  this  class  are 
much  simpler,  such  as  Casina  325,  "nunc  in  fermento  totast,  ita  turget 
mihi"  or  Cis.  535,  "et  illud  paveo  et  hoc  formido,  ita  tota  sum  misera  in 
metu."  Mention  might  here  be  made  of  Cur.  299  f.  where  Curculio  says 
"  recte  hie  monstrat,  si  imperare  possit.  Nam  ita  nunc  mos  viget,/  ita  nunc 
servitiumst:  profecto  modus  haberi  non  potest."  Of  this  Langen  writes 
(Beitrage,  p.  233  f.)  "In  dem  Falle,  dass  sich — ita — auf  das  Folgende 
bezieht,  ist  die  verbindung  mit  dem  Vorhergehenden  durch  nam  nicht 
ganz  selten." 

b.  For  defining — zuitJi  or  unthout  ehange  in  form. 

In  the  examples  so  far  considered,  the  repetition,  whether  it  retained 
or  changed  the  form  of  the  original  statement,  merely  reiterated  the 
original  thought.  Parallel  to  the  various  classes  into  which  this  larger 
class  of  repetition  by  iteration  was  divided,  are  classes  in  which  the  rep- 
etition does  more  than  merely  iterate  the  original  statement.  Here  we 
find  a  distinct  defining  element  in  the  repetition.  Except,  then,  for  the 
fact  that  the  repetition  defines  rather  than  iterates,  the  following  classes 
will  be  found  similar  to  those  already  considered.  First  there  is  that  class 
in  which  the  repetition  is  very  close  to  the  original  statement,  yet  has  a 
certain  defining  force.  In  the  Men.  242  f.  Men.  replies  to  Messenio  "Ergo 
istuc  quaeso  certum  qui  faciat  mihi  /  qui  sese  dicat  scire  eum  esse 
emortuom."  Here  the  second  qui  clause  repeats  the  thought  of  the  first 
qui  clause  and  also  defines  istiie  although  the  meaning  is  already  clear 
enough.  The  form  of  the  repetition  remains  the  same  as  that  of  the  origi- 
nal statement.  In  the  Stichus  347  fT.  Pinacium  commands  "munditias  volo 
fieri,  ecferte  hue  scopas  simulque  harundinem,/  ut  operam  omnem  ara- 
neonem  perdam  et  texturam  inprobem."  Then  he  defines  this  with 
"  deiciamque  eorum  omnis  telas."  Here  again  the  form  remains  the  same. 
In  the  Most.  191  f.  the  nurse,  Scapha,  warns  her  mistress.  "Stulta  es  plane/ 
quae  ilium  tibi  aeternum  putes  fore  amicum  et  benevoletem  /.  Moneo 
ego  te:  te  ille  deseret  aetate  et  satietate."  This  last  clause  merely  defines 
the  meaning  of  the  first  sentence.  The  thought  is  clear  enough  when 
Scapha  says  that  Philematium  cannot  expect  her  lover  to  be  faithful 
always.  But  then  she  makes  her  meaning  clearer  by  defining  this  expres- 
sion ;  that  is,  she  does  more  than  reiterate  the  thought.  The  form  of  the 
repetition  does  not  differ  materially  from  that  of  the  original  statement. 

These  two  examples  show  a  repetition  which  is  rather  close  to  the 
original  statement ;  the  following  show  a  repetition  which  is  not  so  close. 
In  the  Most.  715  f.  Tranio  exclaims  "hoc  habet!  repperi  qui  senem 
ducerem,"  then  he  defines  this  with  "quo  dolo  a  me  dolorem  procul  pel- 
lerem" — the  form  of  the  repetition  remaining  the  same  as  that  of  the 
original  statement.  In  the  Trin.  233  f.  Lysiteles  reflects  "nisi  hoc  sic 
faciam,  opinor,  ut  utramque  rem  simul  exputem,  index  sim  reusque  ad 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  17 

eac  rem."  Here  the  index  clause  defines  more  clearly  the  ut  clause,  the 
form  remaining  the  same.  Another  example  is  Rudens  1 1 79  f.,  "age 
eamus,  mea  gnata,  ad  matrem  tuam/quae  ex  te  poterit  argumentis  hanc 
rem  magis  exquirere."  Then  Daemones  defines  the  relative  clause  by 
another  relative  clause  "quae  te  magis  tractavit  magisque  signa  pernovit 
tua."  Most  of  the  examples  belonging  to  this  class  of  repetition  keep  the 
form  of  the  original  statement.  But  in  the  Most.  1073  f.  we  find  a  change 
in  the  form,  "alter  hoc  Athenis  nemo  doctior  dici  potest."  Then  Tranio 
defines  this,  changing  the  form,  "verba  illi  non  magis  dare  hodie  quis- 
quam  quam  lapidi  potest." 

Combining  at  once  the  characteristics  of  each  of  these  two  classes  is 
that  class  of  repetition  in  which  a  short  phrase  is  balanced  by  another 
short  phrase.  Here  the  repetition  is  sometimes  close,  at  other  times  less 
close.  In  the  M.  G.  144  f.  Palaestrio  says  "  et  sene  sciente  hoc  feci:  is 
consilium  debit."  Here  the  is  clause  defines  more  clearly  the  sene  sci- 
ente. The  form  is  different,  otherwise  the  repetition  is  close  to  the  origi- 
nal phrase.  In  the  Stichus  577  occurs  "  atque  eccum  tibi  lupum  in  ser- 
mone."  Epignomus  defines  this  with  "praesens  essuriens  adest."  Here 
the  form  is  the  same  and  the  repetition  is  close  to  the  original  statement. 
In  the  Rudens  527  Labrax  gives  a  very  good  example  of  this  type  of  de- 
fining repetition  but  balance  is  not  so  well  maintained.  He  complains 
"edepol,  Neptune,  es  balineator  frigidus."  Then  he  defines  this  with 
"cum  vestimentis  postquam  aps  te  abii,  algeo."  Here  the  form  distinctly 
changes  and  there  is  a  certain  balance  between  the  balineator  and  the 
postquam  clause,  the  frigidns  and  algeo.  But  most  clear  is  the  defining 
quality  of  the  repetition.  Another  example  of  balanced  repetition  occurs 
in  the  M.  G.  1220  f.  "cum  ipso  pol  sum  locuta,  /  placide,  ipsae  dum 
lubitum  est  mihi."  Then  Milphidippa  repeats  placide  in  otiose,  and  the 
ipsae  clause  in  nieo  arbitratu.  Here  the  balance  is  clear,  the  form 
of  the  repetition  changes  but  in  the  adverbial  repetition  there  is  merely 
iteration  while  in  the  second  part  there  is  a  distinct  defining  element. 

It  is  to  be  expected  that  the  defining  characteristic  of  a  repetition  would 
be  most  clear  where  the  thought  of  a  single  word— noun,  adjecti\e,  or 
verb — is  repeated  in  a  phrase.  Here  it  is  natural  that  such  a  repetition 
should  not  merely  reiterate  the  single  word  but  should  define  it  more 
clearly.  The  monologue  of  Philolaches  (Most.  120  f. )  offers  an  example 
of  this  class,  "primumdum  parentes  fabri  liberum  sunt."  Then  in  the 
next  line  he  defines  the  fabri  with  "i  fundamentum  supstruont  liberorum." 
Of  course  in  this  class  the  form  of  the  repetition  is  always  different  from 
the  word  it  defines.  Another  example  similar  to  this  one  occurs  in  the  Poe. 
1 125  where  Milphio  says  "praestrigator  hie  quidem  Poenus  probust." 
Then  he  defines  his  meaning  more  clearly  with  "perduxit  omnis  ad  suam 
sententiam."  The  next  two  examples  show  some  variation  from  this  form 
of  a  noun  repeated  and  defined  by  a  sentence.  In  the  Ep.  274  f.  Epidicus 
says  "sic  faciundum  censeo, /quasi  tu  cupias  liberare  fidicinam  animi 
gratia."  Then  he  defines  this  by  "quasique  ames  vehementer  tu  illam." 


i8  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

Another  form  which  this  chiss  of  repetition  takes  is  shown  in  the  Pseu. 
1 193  f.,  "j)raeceptor  tuos  quis  te  hanc  falhiciam/docuit."  In  each  of  these 
examples  the  meaning  of  the  noun  is  defined  and  made  clear  in  the  repeti- 
tion, yet  nothing  is  really  added,  the  meaning  of  the  noun  being  clear 
enough  without  the  repetition. 

Turning  to  the  analogous  repetition  of  the  thought  of  an  adjecti\-e,  the 
examples  are  in  the  main  similar  to  those  given  in  treating  of  the  nouns. 
In  the  Aul.  324  ff.  Anthrax  asserts,  "  coquos  ille  nundinalest."  Then  he 
defines  the  adjecti\e  -with  "in  nonum  diem  solet  ire  coctum."  Similar  to 
this  is  Cur.  384  f.  where  Curculio  answers  Lyco  "nil  tu  me  saturum 
monueris."  Then  two  lines  below  he  defines  saturmn  with  "edepol  ne 
ego  hie  med  intus  explevi  probe."  In  the  Stichus  465  f.  the  repetition,  in 
addition  to  the  defining  element,  also  adds  something  to  the  adjective. 
Gelasimus  exclaims  "Epignome,  ut  ego  nunc  te  conspicio  lubens!"  Then 
he  explains  and  defines  the  lubens  with  "ut  prae  laetitia  lacrumae 
prosiliunt  mihi !"  In  the  Epi.  730  f.  there  is  some  variation.  Epidicus 
promises  "invitus  do  hanc  veniam  tibi."  Then  he  defines  the  invitus  with 
"nisi  necessitate  cogar." 

Examples  in  which  the  thought  of  a  verb  is  defined  in  a  repetition  are 
much  less  numerous  than  the  analogous  cases  of  noun  and  adjective.  In 
the  Bacc.  474  Mnesilochus  says  "erras,  Lyde."  Then  she  defines  erras 
wath  "tu  Pistoclerum  falso  atque  insontem  arguis,"  although  the  meaning 
of  erras  is  clear  enough  when  taken  in  its  context.  Another  example  oc- 
curs in  the  M.  G.  50  f.  "dum  tale  facies  quale  adhuc,  adsiduo  edes." 
Then  the  soldier  defines  what  he  means  or  rather  how  Artrogus  may 
have  such  a  pleasure  "communicabo  semper  te  mensa  mea."  This  repeats 
the  thought  of  adsiduo  edes  but  also  adds  something  by  explaining  who 
is  to  provide  the  food. 

Belonging  to  this  same  defining  class  of  repetition  are  those  examples 
which  are  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  conditional  form  of  the  origi- 
nal statement  is  lost  in  the  repetition.  In  the  Poe.  1280  f.  Antamoenides 
says  "si  ego  minam  non  ultus  fuero  probe  quam  lenoni  dedi,  /  tum  pro- 
fecto  me  sibi  habento  scurrae  ludificatui."  A  few  lines  later  (1286  f.) 
he  repeats  the  thought  of  the  si  clause  "sic  dedero  :  aere  militari  tetigero 
lenunculum."  Here  the  form  changes  and  the  repetition  defines  the  origi- 
nal statement.  Similar  to  this  example  but  with  the  conditional  form  in 
the  repetition  is  Mer.  382,  "res  adhuc  quidem  hercle  in  tutost,  nam  hunc 
nescire  sat  scio  /  de  ilia  amica."  Charinus  then  defines  this  statement,  es- 
pecially the  res  clause,  with  "quod  si  scirit,  esset  alia  oratio."  The  form, 
of  course,  changes.  Analogous  to  these  examples  is  True.  292  ff.  where 
Truculentus  taunts  Astaphium,  "itane?  erubuisti?  quasi  vero  corpori  reli- 
queris/tuo  potestatem  coloris  ulli  capiendi,  mala!"  He  then  defines  this, 
changing  the  form,  "buccas  rubrica,  creta  omne  corpus  intinxti  tibi." 

The  last  two  classes  of  repetition  by  iteration  were  those  marked  by 
the  occurrence  of  an  ita  or  nam.  The  same  classes  are  found  in  repetition 
by  definition.  I  will  treat  first  that  class  which  is  marked  by  ita  and  then. 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  19 

before  treating  the  class  marked  by  nam,  will  give  example?  of  repetition 
in  which  a  nam  does  not  occur  but  in  which  the  explanatory  element  is 
much  stronger  than  in  the  ordinary  repetition.  Men.  468  shows  the 
simplest  form  which  the  ita  repetition  takes.  Menaechmus  II  promises 
Erotium  "non  faxo  eam  esse  dices."  Then  he  defines  with  "ita  igno- 
rabitur."  The  form  of  the  repetition  is  somewhat  different  from  that  of 
the  original  statement.  In  the  Cap.  46  f.  we  find  a  more  complicated  rep- 
etition, "sed  inscientes  sua  sibi  fallacia  /  ita  compararunt  et  confinxerunt 
dolum  /  itaque  hi  commenti  de  sua  sententia  /  ut  in  servitute  hie  ad  suoih 
maneat  patrem  :/ita  nunc  ignorans  suo  sibi  servit  patri."  Here  there  is 
almost  word  for  word  balance — in  servitute  maneat — servit,  ad  suoin 
patrem — suo  patri.  The  defining  element  is  strengthened  by  ignorans 
in  the  repetition.  In  the  Mer.  588  Charinus  complains  "sumne  ego  homo 
miser,  qui  nusquam  bene  queo  quiescere?  /  si  domo  sum,  foris  est  animus, 
sin  foris  sum,  animus  domist."  He  defines  this  statement  in  more  particu- 
lar form  with  "ita  mi  in  pectore  atque  in  corde  facit  amor  incendium." 
A  simpler  form  is  shown  in  the  Rudens  1225  f.  "  Hercules  istum  infelicet 
cum  sua  licentia!"  Then  Daemones  defines  this,  especially  the  licentia 
with  "ita  meas  replevit  auris  quidquid  memorabam  'licet.'  "  There  are  ex- 
amples in  which  the  ita  according  to  Langen  has  the  force  of  enini  such 
as,  M.  G.  402  f.,  "nescio  quid  credam  egomet  mihi  iam,/  ita  quod  vidisse 
credo./  Me  id  iam  non  vidisse  arbitror."  Langen  (Beitrage,  p.  232  f. ) 
says  of  this  example  "hier  steht  ita  vollig  statt  des  spateren  (nicht  des 
plautinischen,  cfr  unten)  enim."  Another  example  of  this  occurs  in  the 
Trin.  542  ff.,  "tum  autem  Surorum,  genus  quod  patientissumumst  / 
hominum,  nemo  exstat  qui  ibi  sex  menses  vixerit:/  ita  cuncti  solstitial! 
morbo  decidunt."  The  ita  clause  defines  and  also  repeats  the  thought  ex- 
pressed in  nemo  etc.  But  according  to  Langen,  in  the  last  two  examples 
the  ita  has  the  force  of  enim.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  this  causal 
force  of  ita  may  easily  be  overworked  and  applied  to  practically  every 
example  of  repetition  with  ita  found  in  Plautus.  In  such  a  simple  example 
as  M.  G.  522  f.,  "transcurre  curriculo  ad  nos,  ita  negotiumst,"  one  may 
feel  that  ita  possesses  some  of  the  force  of  enim  but  in  actual  fact  on 
closer  examination  it  can  be  seen  that  the  negotiumst  does  not  so  much 
give  the  cause  of  the  transcurre  as  that  it  defines  the  thought  of  haste. 

Analogous  to  these  examples  of  repetition  with  ita  are  such  cases  as 
Poe.  917  f.,  "di  immortales  meum  erum  servatum  volunt  /  et  hunc  dis- 
perditum  lenonem :  tantum  eum  instat  exiti."  Here  the  tantum  clause 
defines  the  last  part  of  the  previous  sentence,  changing  the  form.  The 
same  is  true  of  Poe.  1 1  79  f.  "  hau  sordere  visust  /  festus  dies,  Venus,  nee 
tuom  fanum  :  tantus  ibi  clientarum  erat  numerus."  In  the  following  ex- 
ample the  repetition  is  marked  by  eo.  In  the  True,  i  78  f.  Diniarchus  says 
"In  melle  sunt  linguae  sitae  vostrae  atque  orationes,/  facta  atque  corda 
in  felle  sunt  sita  atque  acerbo  aceto."  Then  he  repeats  and  defines  this 
with  "eo  dicta  lingua  dulcia  datis,  corde  amara  facitis."  Examples  of 
repetition  in  which  tantus  or  eo  occurs  are  not  very  numerous  in  Plautus 


20  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

and,  since  they  are  similar  to  those  marked  by  the  occurrence  of  ita,  they 
have  been  merely  mentioned  in  discussing  the  latter. 

Consider  now  a  few  examples  of  repetition  in  which  the  explanatory 
element  is  much  stronger  than  in  the  ordinary  repetition  but  which  is  not 
marked  by  Jiavi.  In  the  Bacc.  361  ff.  Chrysalus  complains  "credo  hercle 
adveniens  nomen  mutabit  mihi"  ;  then  he  defines  and  explains  this  with 
"  facietque  extemplo  Crucisalum  me  ex  Chrysalo."  In  this  repetition  the 
explanatory  character  is  very  clear.  This  example  differs  from  examples 
already  quoted  in  that  the  original  statement  does  require  a  certain 
amount  of  explanation  and  because  of  this  lack  of  clearness  the  repetition 
is  much  stronger  as  a  defining  repetition.  In  the  Trin.  43  f.  Megaronides 
says  "hie  ille  est  senecta  aetate  qui  factust  puer."  He  then  explains  and 
defines  this  with  a  relati\e  clause  "qui  admisit  in  se  culpam  castigabilem." 
Here  the  meaning  of  the  original  statement  is  clearer  than  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  statement  in  the  first  example  and  for  that  reason  the 
repetition  here  has  less  explanatory  force  than  the  repetition  in  the  pre- 
vious example.  In  the  Pseu.  281  f.  Ballio  says  "nimio  id  quod  pudet 
facilius  fertur  quam  illud  quod  piget."  Then  he  explains  this  with  "non 
dedisse  istunc  pudet:  me  quid  non  accepi  piget."  Here  again  the  meaning 
of  the  original  statement  was  fairly  clear.  In  the  Rudens  89  f.  Plesidip- 
pus  apologizes  to  his  friends  "Et  vos  a  vostris  abduxi  negotiis/neque  id 
processit  qua  vos  duxi  gratia."  He  explains  and  defines  this  by  adding 
"neque  quivi  ad  portum  lenonem  prehendere."  Here  the  meaning  of  the 
original  statement,  taken  in  its  context,  would  be  clear  to  a  certain  extent 
but  might  require  some  word  of  explanation.  These  four  examples  show 
distinctly  a  class  of  repetition  in  which  the  original  statement  requires 
a  certain  amount  of  explanation  although  the  second  statement  is  not 
in  any  case  so  far  removed  from  the  original  statement  as  to  prevent  us 
from  treating  it  as  a  repetition  with  a  large  amount  of  explanatory  ele- 
ment connected  with  it. 

To  pass  now  to  the  final  class  of  repetition  by  definition — that  which  is 
characterized  by  the  occurrence  of  nam  in  the  repetition.  The  simplest 
form  which  this  class  takes  is  shown  in  the  True,  yj  f.,  "nam  mihi  haec 
meretrix  quae  hie  habet,  Phronesium,/suom  nomen  omne  ex  pectore  ex- 
movit  meo,/  Phronesium."  Diniarchus  then  explains  with  "nam  phronesis 
est  sapientia."  In  the  Men.  222  Culindrus  says  to  Erotium  "iam  isti  sunt 
decem."  This  is  clear  enough  but  he  repeats  and  explains  his  meaning 
with  "nam  parasitos  octo  hominum  munus  facile  fungitur."  A  very  neat 
example  of  this  kind  of  repetition  occurs  in  the  Most.  700  f.  where  Tranio 
says  that  trouble  is  waiting  for  the  old  man — "  Res  paratast  mala  in  ves- 
perum  huic  seni."  Then  he  explains  and  defines  with  "nam  et  cenandum 
et  cubandumst  ei  male."  Here  the  defining  element  in  the  repetition  is 
very  clear.  In  the  Rudens  485  ff.  we  find  an  example  which  is  a  little 
different  from  those  so  far  noticed — "Qui  homo  sese  miserumet  mendicum 
volet,/  Neptuno  credat  sese  atque  aetatem  suam."  Then  Labrax  explains 
with  particular  reference  to  his  own  case  what  happens  if  a  man  does  en- 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  21 

trust  himself  to  Neptune,  "nam  si  quis  cum  eo  quid  rei  commiscuit,  /  ad 
hoc  exemplum  amittit  ornatum  domum."  Analogous  to  this  last  example 
is  Mer.  313  f.,  "si  umquam  vidistis  pictum  amatorem,  em  illic  est  /  nam 
meo  quidem  animo  vetulus,  decrepitus  senex  /  tantidemst  quasi  si  signum 
pictum  in  pariete."  These  examples  are  sufficient  to  show  that  in  this  class 
of  repetition  the  defining  character  of  the  repetition  is  reenforced  and 
made  more  prominent  by  the  occurrence  of  nam.  But  in  actual  fact  save 
for  this  nam,  the  defining  character  of  these  examples  is  not  any  stronger 
than  that  which  is  found  in  the  examples  considered  just  previous  to 
this  class. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  paper  it  was  stated  that  this  entire  class  of 
repetition,  so  far  considered,  was  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  rep- 
etition occurs  without  any  interruption  from  another  speaker.  This  large 
class  of  repetition  was  then  divided  into  repetition  for  iteration  and  rep- 
etition for  definition.  In  each  of  these  two  divisions  it  was  also  noticed 
that  the  repetition  might  retain  the  form  of  the  original  statement  but 
on  the  other  hand  might  show  more  or  less  variation  from  this  form.    . 

2.  Merely  Resumptive  after  Interruption — for  Iteration 

The  other  class  of  equivalent  repetitions  is  that  which  is  characterized 
by  the  fact  that  the  repetition  is  in  a  way  motivated  and  made  more 
plausible  by  an  interruption  from  the  listener.  In  the  first  place  it  may 
be  stated  in  regard  to  this  class  of  repetition  that  practically  every  ex- 
ample shows  repetition  by  iteration.  It  might  be  expected  that  when  a 
speaker  has  made  a  statement  and  is  then  interrupted,  he  would  rather 
define  his  first  statement  than  merely  reiterate  it.  The  only  example  which 
was  found  to  have  any  defining  force  was  Poe.  761  f.  Here  Agoras- 
tocles  says  "servom  esse  audivi  meum/apud  te."  Lycus  then  interrupts 
with  "apud  me?  numquam  factum  reperies,"  to  which  Agorastocles 
answers  "nam  ad  te  venit  aurumque  attulit./ita  mi  renuntiatumst,  quibus 
credo  satis."  Even  here  the  defining  element  in  the  repetition  is  not  very 
strong. 

Consider  now  the  simplest  examples  of  this  class  of  repetition  by  itera- 
tion after  an  interruption.  In  the  Cur.  712  f.  Therapontigonus  says  "me 
ipso  praesente  et  Lycone  tarpezita."  Cappadox  interrupts  with  "non 
ego  te  flocci  facio;  ne  me  territes"  which  causes  Therapontigonus  to  re- 
peat his  statement  practically  word  for  word  "me  ipso  praesente  et 
Lycone  factum  est."  xA.nother  exact  repetition  occurs  in  the  M.  G.  986 
f.  Palaestrio  says  "haec  celox  illiust  quae  hinc  egreditur,  inter- 
nuntia."  Then  when  Pyrgopolynices  asks  "quae  haec  celox f  he  answers 
"ancillula  illiust,  quae  hinc  egreditur  foras."  Still  another  occurs  in  Most. 
1000  f.  Simo  asserts  "  vidi  ecferri  mortuom."  Theopropides  ejaculates 
"hem."  Simo  repeats  "  novom  unum  vidi  mortuom  ecferri  foras."  In  each 
of  these  three  examples  the  repetition  was  motivated — in  the  second  by  a 


2Z  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

direct  question  but  just  as  naturally  in  the  other  two  by  an  expression  of 
disdain  and  disgust. 

The  greater  number  of  examples  of  this  class,  however,  show  much 
more  variety  than  these  simpler  examples.  In  the  Men.  855  f.  Menaechmus 
II  threatens  the  old  man  "ita  mihi  imperas  ut  ego  huius  membra  atque 
ossa  atque  artua/comminuam  illo  scipione  quem  ipse  habet."The  old  man 
answers  "dabitur  malum,  /  me  quidem  si  attigeris  aut  si  proprius  ad  me 
accesseris."  Menaechmus  says  that  he  will  obey  the  command  of  x^poUo, 
"faciam  quod  iubes;  securim  capiam  ancipitem  atque  hunc  senem  /  osse 
fini  dedolabo  assulatim  viscera."  The  counter-threat  of  the  old  man  moti- 
vates the  repetition  of  Menaechmus'  threat.  In  the  Cap.  605  f.  Aristo- 
phontes  says  "neque  pol  me  insanum,  Hegio,  esse  creduis  /  neque  fuisse 
umquam,  neque  esse  morbum  quem  istic  autumat."  Hegio  says  "do  tibi 
operam — si  quid  est  quod  me  velis"  which  causes  Aristophontes  to  repeat 
"sed  hoc  primum  me  expurigare  tibi  volo,  me  insaniam  /  neque  tenere 
neque  mi  esse  ullum  morbum  nisi  quod  servio."  In  the  Most.  810  f. 
Tranio  advises  Theopropides  "cave  tu  illi  obiectes  nunc  in  aegritudine  / 
te  has  emisse.  Non  tu  vides  hunc  voltu  uti  tristi  est  senex?"  Theopropides 
agrees  "video."  But  the  slave  cannot  think  of  anything  to  say  except  to 
reiterate  his  caution  "ergo  inridere  ne  videare  et  gestire  admodum ;  / 
noli  facere  mentionem  ted  emisse."  In  the  same  play,  958  f.,  Phaniscus 
tells  the  old  man  "numquam  hie  triduom  unum  desitum  est  potarier."  Then 
as  Theopropides  expresses  his  surprise  and  indignation  "Quid  aisf"  the 
slave  repeats  "Triduom  unum  baud  intermissumst  hie  esse  et  bibi,/  scorta 
ducere,  pergraecari,  fidicinas,  tibicinas  /  ducere."  In  this  repetition  some- 
thing is  added  and  there  is  a  certain  defining  element  in  the  repetition. 
The  same  play  offers  another  good  example  of  this  kind  of  repetition. 
Philolaches  cries  (386  f. )  "peril!"  To  this  Tranio  says  "  habe  bonum  ani- 
mum  :  ego  istum  lepide  medicabo  metum !"  Again  Philolaches  cries  "nul- 
lus  sum"  which  causes  Tranio  to  repeat  his  promise  "  Taceas  :  ego  qui 
istaec  sedem  meditabor  tibi."  These  examples  are  sufficient  to  show  the 
character  of  this  class  of  repetition  and  to  point  out  to  what  extent  the 
interruption  motivates  the  repetition.  Except  for  this  element  of  moti- 
vation the  instances  of  this  type  are  not  different  from  the  instances  in 
which  there  is  no  interruption. 

B.  GENERAL— PARTICULAR 

Consider  now  examples  of  those  types  of  repetition  which  show  a  more 
complicated  form.  The  most  important  single  type  of  repetition  in  Plautus 
is  that  in  which  an  attempt  is  made  to  particularize  a  general  statement. 
In  the  dialogue  a  general  statement  is  made  w^hich  is  not  sufficiently  clear 
to  the  listeners.  To  make  this  general  thought  clear  the  speaker  usually 
does  one  of  three  things.  Having  made  a  statement  which  is  indefinite 
and  vague  rather  than  clearly  general  he  repeats  this  in  a  more  specific 
form.  There  is  usually  a  certain  unity  in  the  original  statement  but  in  a 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  23 

great  many  cases  a  single  word  occurs  in  tliis  statement,  and  it  is  the 
meaning  of  this  word  which  is  made  specific  in  the  repetition.  This  class 
in  which  an  indefinite  statement  is  made  specific  in  the  repetition  offers 
the  widest  variety  in  the  examples.  The  second  method  used  in  this  type 
of  repetition  offers  less  variety  but  is  much  easier  to  understand.  Having 
made  a  general  statement,  the  speaker  analyzes  this  into  details.  Here  in 
the  original  statement  there  is  usually  a  short  phrase  which  requires 
analysis.  Less  often  it  is  the  whole  statement  which  is  analyzed.  The  third 
method  is  that  in  which  a  general  statement  is  illustrated.  The  speaker 
makes  a  general  statement,  often  in  the  form  of  a  proverb,  and  then  makes 
this  particular  by  applying  it  to  himself  or  to  some  other  individual.  Thus 
in  each  case  the  repetition  is  merely  to  repeat  the  general  thought  with 
precision  of  detail  so  that  it  may  make  a  stronger  impression  on  the  minds 
of  the  listeners.  This  end  is  accomplished  better,  as  will  be  shown  later, 
by  first  giving  the  particular  details  and  then  ending  with  the  general 
thought  or  summary,  that  is,  by  reversing  the  process  just  outlined. 

I.  Indefinite  Statement  made  Specific 

The  different  classes  into  which  this  larger  type  may  be  divided  will 
in  general  be  found  to  be  more  or  less  similar  to  the  classes  under  which 
equivalent  repetitions  were  treated.  Take  first  the  simplest  examples — 
those  in  which  the  general  thought  is  expressed  in  a  single  word — noun, 
adjective  or  verb — while  it  is  made  particular  in  a  phrase.  In  the  M.  G.  92 
f.  Palaestrio  says  "is  deridiculost  quaqua  incedit  omnibus."  Then  he 
makes  more  particular  the  general  idea  of  deridiculo  with  "itaque  hie 
meretrices,  labiis  dum  nictant  ei,/  maiorem  partem  videas  valgis  saviis" ; 
that  is,  he  gives  the  particular  way  in  which  the  courtesans  make  fun 
of  the  soldier.  In  the  Trin.  loi  f.  Megaronides  complains  "tum  autem 
sunt  alii  qui  te  \'olturium  vocant."  This  general  epithet  volturium  is 
made  particular  with  "  hostisne  an  civis  comedis  parvi  pendere."  In  the 
Ep.  104  f.  Stratippocles  says  "Rem  tibi  sum  locutus  omnem,  Chaeribule." 
He  particularizes  the  general  rem  with  "atque  admodum  /  meorum 
maerorum  atque  amorum  summam  edictaAi  tibi."  These  three  examples 
show  clearly  enough  the  character  of  this  class  in  which  the  general 
thought  of  a  noun  is  made  particular,  not  by  giving  a  long  list  of  details 
but  merely  by  analyzing  the  particular  form  which  the  action  (as  ex- 
pressed in  the  noun)  takes  in  the  situation  under  discussion. 

The  examples  in  which  the  general  thought  of  an  adjective  is  made 
particular  in  a  phrase  are  similar  to  the  preceding  noun  examples.  In  the 
Amph.  1 1 17  ff.  Amphitruo  exclaims  "mira  memoras,  nimis  formidulo- 
sum  facinus  praedicas."  Then  he  makes  the  general  adjective  fonni- 
dtdosmn  particular  with  "nam  mihi  horror  membra  misero  percipit 
dictis  tuis."  In  other  words  he  explains  how  the  deed  causes  him  fear.  In 
the  Cas.  449  f.  Olympio  exclaims  "  ut  tibi  ego  inventus  sum  obsequens !" 
The  adjective  obsequens  is  made  particular  with  "quod  maxume  /  cupie- 


24  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

bas,  eius  copiam  feci  tibi."  Then  he  makes  it  even  more  particular 
with  "erit  hodie  tecum  quod  amas  clam  uxorem."  Amphitruo  506  ff. 
shows  some  variation  :  "  nimis  hie  scitust  sycophanta  qui  quidem  meus 
sit  pater."  Then  Mercurius  particularizes  not  merely  the  adjective  but 
also  to  a  certain  extent  the  noun  with  "opservatote,  quam  blande  mulier 
palpabitur."  At  first  glance  it  may  seem  that  the  noun  sycophanta  is  the 
word  whose  general  meaning  Mercury  wishes  to  make  more  particular. 
But  on  closer  consideration  it  will  be  found  that  sycophanta  is  clear 
enough  but  that  the  adjective  scitus  needs  to  be  made  more  particular. 

So  much  for  the  adjective  examples.  The  examples  in  which  the  general 
thought  of  a  \'erb  is  made  more  particular  in  a  following  phrase  are  of 
the  same  order.  In  the  Men.  481  Menaechmus  II  boasts  "quoniam  sentio 
/  errare,  extemplo,  quasi  res  cum  ea  esset  mihi,/  coepi  adsentari."  The 
general  thought  of  adse.ntari  is  made  particular  with  "mulier  quidquid 
dixerat,  /  idem  ego  dicebam."  In  the  Poe.  578  f.  Milphio  warns  CoUy- 
biscus  "vide  sis  calleas."  After  Collybiscus  promises,  he  makes  his  warn- 
ing more  particular,  "  f ac  modo  ut  condocta  tibi  sint  dicta  ad  banc  fal- 
laciam."  In  the  types  just  treated,  in  which  the  thought  of  a  noun,  ad- 
jective or  verb  is  repeated  and  made  particular  in  a  phrase,  the  examples 
on  the  whole  are  not  very  satisfactory.  Those  given  are  the  best  ones  which 
I  have  found  and  in  actual  fact  might  be  treated  as  the  only  clear  ex- 
amples since  the  others  (not  very  numerous:  about  six  in  each  class)  are 
not  very  good  and,  taken  alone  without  those  examples  already  treated, 
they  would  probably  show  nothing  very  distinctive  to  differentiate  them 
from  the  equivalent  repetitions. 

There  are  a  great  many  examples  of  this  type  of  repetition  which  are 
characterized  and  differentiated  from  other  examples  merely  by  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  more  or  less  close  balance  between  the  thought  as  expressed 
in  a  general  way  and  its  repetition  in  a  more  particular  form.  In  the  Rud. 
54  f.  Arcturus  says  "Ibi  esse  homines  voluptarios  /  dicit,  potesse  ibi  eum 
fieri  divitem."  Here  the  meaning  is  clear  enough  as  to  how  the  leno  may 
grow  rich  in  Sicily,  but  this  general  thought  is  made  more  specific  with 
"ibi  esse  quaestum  maxumum  meretricibus."The  same  is  true  of  Men.  574 
ff.  "  clientes  sibi  omnes  volunt  esse  multos ;/  bonine  an  mali  sint,  id  hau 
quaeritant;  res  /  magis  quaeritus  quam  clientum  fides  /  quoius  modi 
clueat."  Menaechmus  makes  this  specific  with  "si  est  pauper  atque  hau 
malus  nequam  habetur,/  sin  dives  malust,  is  cliens  frugi  habetur."  Here 
it  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  a  resemblance  between  the  general  ex- 
pression and  the  particular.  In  the  Amph.  302  f.  Sosia  cries  "  formido 
male/ne  ego  hie  nomen  meum  commutem  et  Quintus  fiam  e  Sosia."  He 
particularizes  this  with  "quattuor  viros  sopori  se  dedisse  hie  autumat:/ 
metuo  ne  numerum  augeam  ilium."  A  simpler  example  with  closer 
balance  is  found  in  Mer.  225  f.  Demipho  makes  the  indefinite  statement 
"miris  modis  di  ludos  faciunt  hominibus."  Then  to  lead  up  to  his  own 
experience  he  makes  his  statement  more  specific  with  "  mi  risque  exemplis 
omnia  in  somnis  danunt." 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  25 

In  all  the  examples  of  this  type  of  repetition,  there  is  a  certain  ex- 
planatory element  in  the  repetition  of  the  general  thought.  But  there  are 
many  examples  in  which  this  explanatory  element  is  so  very  strong  that 
it  differentiates  these  examples  from  others  of  this  type.  In  the  Rud.  711" 
f.  Labrax  complains,  Shylock  fashion,  "  meum  ereptum  est  mihi."  He 
makes  this  specific  with  the  explanation  "meas  mihi  ancillas  invito  me 
eripis."  In  the  Epi.  493  f.  Periphanes  praises  Epidicus  "  Epidice,  frugi's, 
pugnasti,  homo  es  qui  me  emunxisti  mucidum,  minimi  preti."  Then  in  line 
511  he  makes  his  meaning  clear  by  particularizing  the  action  with  "planis- 
sume  /  meum  exenteravit  Epidicus  marsuppium."  The  force  of  this  ex- 
ample is  somewhat  weakened  by  the  conversation  which  goes  on  between 
the  two  sentences.  In  the  Trin.  533  ff.  we  find  a  more  complicated  ex- 
ample, "Neque  umquam  quisquamst  quoius  illic  ager  fuit  /  quin  pessume 
ei  res  vorterit."  Stasimus  particularizes  and  makes  this  specific  with  "quo- 
ium  fuit,/  alii  exsulatum  abierunt,  alii  emortui,/  alii  se  suspendere.  em 
nunc  hie  quoius  est  /  ut  ad  incitas  redactust."  Another  example  will  show 
clearly  how  these  examples  may  be  differentiated  from  those  in  which 
the  explanatory  element  is  not  so  strong.  In  the  Rud.  1281  ff.  Labrax 
complains  "  Quis  me  est  mortalis  miserior  qui  vivat  alter  hodie  /  quem  ad 
recuperatores  modo  damnavit  PlesidippusT'  He  then  particularizes  and 
explains  with  "abiudicata  a  me  modo  est  Palaestra,  perditus  sum." 

Often  the  general  thought  is  expressed  negatively  and  is  then  repeated 
in  more  particular  form  affirmatively.  In  the  Most.  690  f.  Simo  expresses 
his  satisfaction  "  melius  anno  hoc  mihi  non  fuit  domi  /  nee  quod  una  esca 
me  iuverit  magis."  This  statement  is  made  specific  with  "prandium  uxor 
mihi  perbonum  dedit."  A  few  lines  later  he  repeats  with  "melius  quom 
prandium  quam  solet  dedit."  In  the  M.  G.  654  f.  Periplectomenus  makes 
the  general  statement  "neque  per  vinum  umquam  ex  me  exoritur  disci- 
dium  in  convivio."  He  particularizes  affirmatively  with  "si  quis  ibi  est 
odiosus,  abeo  domum,  sermonem  segrego.  Venerem,  amorem,  amoenita- 
temque  accubans  exerceo."  This  is  the  best  example  found.  Of  course, 
the  order  may  be  reversed  as  in  Men.  520  f.  "omnes  in  te  istaec  recident 
contumeliae."  Then  Peniculus  particularizes  with  "  f axo  hand  inultus 
prandium  comederis."  In  the  Amp.  1103  ff.  Bromia  cries  "sed  puer  ille 
quem  ego  la\'i,  ut  magnust  et  multum  valet."  Then  she  adds,  making  the 
thought  more  particular,  "neque  eum  quisquam  conligare  quivit  incuna- 
bulis."  Another  example  occurs  in  the  Ep.  531  f.  "multiplex  aerumna 
exercitam  habet,/  paupertas,  pavor  territat  mentem  animi,/  neque  ubi 
meas  conlocem  spes  habeo  mi  usquam  munitum  locum." 

In  this  type  we  also  find  some  examples  in  which  the  thought  is  ex- 
pressed negatively  both  in  the  general  statement  and  in  the  particular  rep- 
etition. In  the  Cap.  272  f.  Philocrates  says  "quamquam  non  multum  fuit 
molesta  servitus."  He  repeats  this  in  more  specific  form  with  "nee  mihi 
secus  erat  quam  si  essem  familiaris  filius."  In  the  Aul.  61  f.  Euclio  doubts 
"nimisque  ego  hanc  metuo  male  /  ne  mi  ex  insidiis  verba  inprudenti 
duit."  He  particularizes  this  with   "neu  persentiscat  aurum  ubi  est  aj)- 


26  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

sconditum."  In  the  Rud.  47  f.  Arcturus  says  "is  leno,  ut  se  aequom  est, 
flocci  non  fecit  fidem."  He  makes  this  specific  with  "neque  quod  iuratus 
adulescenti  dixerat." 

2.  General  Statement  Analyzed 

One  of  the  most  common  forms  which  this  type  of  repetition  takes  is 
that  in  w^hich  the  thought  is  expressed  in  a  general  sense  in  one  phrase 
while  the  repetition  is  made  particular  in  several.  The  thought  is  first 
expressed  generally  and  then  the  details  are  given.  In  the  M.  G.  1358  f. 
Palaestrid  complains  "  Eheu  quom  venit  mi  in  mentem  ut  mores  mutandi 
sient."  He  gives  the  two  details  in  "muliebres  mores  discendi,  oblivescendi 
stratiotici,"  Avhich  particularizes  the  last  phrase  of  his  original  statement. 
A  more  complicated  example  occurs  in  the  Mer.  85  i  flf.  where  Charinus 
makes  the  general  statement  "apparatus  sum  ut  videtis :  abicio  super- 
biam."  He  particularizes  with  "  egomet  sum  mihi  comes,  calator,  equos, 
agaso,  armiger,/  egomet  sum  mihi  imperator,  idem  egomet  mihi  oboedio, 
/  egomet  mihi  fero  quod  usust."  The  best  example  found  is  Trin.  205  flf. 
"qui  omnia  se  simulant  scire  neque  quicquam  sciunt."  Callicles  then  gives 
the  details  "quod  quisque  in  animo  habet  aut  habiturust  sciunt,/  sciunt 
id  quod  in  aurem  rex  reginae  dixerit, /sciunt  quod  Juno  fabulatast  cum 
love;/  quae  neque  futura  neque  sunt,  tamen  illi'  sciunt."  It  will  be  noticed 
that  all  the  examples  so  far  considered  as  belonging  to  this  type  of  gen- 
eral statement  followed  by  repetition  in  more  particular  form  fall  into 
two  groups — those  examples  in  which  a  statement  which  is  rather  indef- 
inite than  general  is  made  more  specific  without  any  definite  application 
but  merely  by  an  explanatory  repetition  and  those  examples  in  which  a 
general  statement  is  made  particular  by  giving  the  details  into  which 
this  statement  may  be  analyzed.  The  next  two  and  last  classes  show-  an 
entirely  different  characteristic. 

3.  General  Statement  Illustrated 

We  often  find  in  Plautus  a  general  statement  in  the  form  of  a  proverb, 
the  gist  of  which  is  repeated  by  giving  it  a  particular  application.  In  the 
Most.  790  f.  Tranio  cries  "  heus  tu,  si  voles  A-erbum  hoc  cogitare,/  simul 
flare  sorbereque  hau  factu  facilest."  He  explains  this  with  a  particular 
application  "ego  hie  esse  et  illi  simitu  hau  jjotui."  The  same  play  offers 
another  good  example  at  379  f.,  "  Miserum  est  opus  /  igitur  demum 
fodere  puteum  ubi  sitis  faucis  tenet."  Philolaches  follows  this  with  the 
particular  application  of  the  proverb  "sicut  ego  adventu  patris  nunc 
quaero  quid  faciam  miser."  In  Stichus  139  f.  Panegyris  advises  his  father 
"stultiast,  pater,  venatum,  ducere  invitas  canes."  He  then  gives  the  par- 
ticular application  "hostis  est  uxor  in\'ita  quae  ad  virum  nuptum  datur." 
A  more  complicated  example  in  which  the  proverb  is  not  as  clear  as  in  the 
examples  just  given  occurs  in  Poe.  627  ff.  "  viam  qui  nescit  qua  dexeniat 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  27 

ad  mare,/  eum  oportet  amnem  quaerere  comitem  sibi  /.  ego  male  loquendi 
vobis  nescivi  viam."  Lycus  illustrates  this  with  "nunc  \'0s  mihi  amnes 
estis ;  vos  certum  est  sequi :/  si  bene  dicetis,  vostra  ripa  vos  sequar,/  si 
male  dicetis,  vostro  gradiar  limite." 

The  last  class  to  be  considered  is  quite  similar  to  this  class  in  which  the 
general  statement  takes  the  form  of  a  proverb.  The  difference  lies  in  the 
fact  that  in  the  examples  which  follow,  the  general  statement  does  not 
take  the  form  of  a  proverb  although  this  general  statement  is  given  a 
particular  application  in  the  repetition.  In  the  True.  164  f.  Astaphium 
moralizes  "dum  vivit,  hominem  noveris :  ubi  mortuost,  quiescat."  Then 
he  applies  this  general  statement  to  a  particular  individual,  Diniarchus, 
"te  dum  vivebas  noveram."  Most  of  the  examples,  however,  are  much 
more  complicated.  In  the  Most.  414  f.  Tranio  makes  the  general  state- 
ment "Verum  id  videndumst,  id  viri  doctist  opus  /  quae  dissignata  sint 
et  facta  nequiter  /  tranquille  cuncta  et  ut  proveniant  sine  malo,/  ni  quid 
potiatur  quam  ob  rem  pigeat  vivere."  He  makes  this  particular  by  appli- 
cation to  himself.  "  Sicut  ego  ecficiam,  quae  facta  hie  turbavimus,/  pro- 
fecto  ut  liqueant  omnia  et  tranquilla  sint  /  neque  quicquam  nobis  pariant 
ex  se  incommodi."  In  the  Pseu.  401  ff.  Pseudolus  says  "sed  quasi  poeta, 
tabulas  quom  cepit  sibi,/  quaerit  quod  nusquam  gentiumst,/  reperit  ta- 
men,/  facit  illud|Veri  simile  quod  mendacium  est."  Then  he  applies  this 
to  himself  "nunc  ego  poeta  fiam  :  viginti  minas,  quae  nunc  nusquam  sunt 
gentium,  inveniam  tamen."  This  larger  type  of  repetition  of  general  by 
particular  falls,  then,  into  three  distinct  groups.  First  that  in  which  an 
indefinite  statement  is  made  specific  in  the  repetition  which  defines  or  ex- 
plains. Secondly  that  in  which  a  general  statement  is  analyzed  into  the 
particular  details.  Thirdly  that  in  which  a  general  statement  is  given  a 
particular  application,  whether  this  statement  is  a  proverb  or  not. 


C.  PARTICULAR  STATEMENT  FOLLOWED 
BY  GENERAL  EXPRESSION 

Corresponding  to  the  general-j^articular  type  of  repetition  is  that  type 
in  which  a  statement  is  given  first  in  a  particular  form  and  is  then  re- 
peated in  a  more  general  way.  This  type,  however,  is  much  smaller  than 
the  previous  type  and  shows  considerably  less  variation.  The  examples 
fall  into  clearly  defined  classes  much  less  easily  than  in  the  previous  types. 
After  examining  carefully  all  the  examples  of  this  type,  I  find  that  the 
only  definite  classes  for  which  there  are  enough  examples  to  differentiate 
them  from  the  other  examples  are  those  in  which  there  is  a  change  in  per- 
son, those  in  which  the  form  corresponds  and  those  in  which  a  negative 
appears  either  in  the  particular  statement  or  in  the  general  repetition. 

But  first  take  a  few  examples  which  are  distinctive  in  themselves  and 
which  form  no  special  class.  In  the  i\s.  517  ff.,  Philaenium  says  "et  meam 
partem  loquendi  et  tuam  trado  tibi ;/  ad  loquendum  atque  ad  tacendum 


28  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

tute  habeas  portisculum."  Then  she  generalizes  the  thought  with  "quin 
pol  si  reposivi  remum,  sola  ego  in  casteria  /  ubi  quiesco,  omnis  familiae 
caussa  consistit  tibi."  Here  the  meretrix  at  first  thinks  only  of  herself  and 
the  lena,  and  then  thinks  of  the  whole  household  in  its  relation  to  the  lena. 
It  is  probably  that  part  of  the  first  expression  which  refers  to  the  lena — 
namely  the  tuaui  etc. — which  calls  to  her  mind  tlie  generalization  which 
follows. 

In  the  Amphitruo  121  fT.  Mercury  is  addressing  the  audience  in  his 
long  prologue.  He  says  of  Jupiter  "  in  Amphitruonis  vortet  sese  imaginem 
omnesque  eum  esse  censent  servi  qui  vident."  It  is  clear  to  the  audience 
that  Jupiter  can  change  himself  into  any  form  he  pleases  but  Mercury 
keeps  up  his  garrulous  tone  with  "  ita  vorsipellem  /  se  facit  quando 
lubet." 

In  the  Menaechmi  (114  f. )  Menaechmus  I  abuses  his  wife  "  rogitas  / 
quo  ego  earn,  quam  rem  agam,  quid  negoti  geram  /  quid  petam,  quid 
feram,  quid  foris  egerim."  He  generalizes  with  "portitorem  domum  duxi, 
ita  omnem  mihi  /  rem  necesse  eloqui  est,  quidquid  egi  atque  ago."  This  is 
practically  a  soliloquy  as  the  matrona  does  not  answer  his  abuse  and  per- 
haps does  not  even  appear. 

Consider  now  the  examples  of  the  three  classes  mentioned  above.  In 
the  Ep.  59  f.  Epidicus  says  "sed  tamen  optumum  est."  Tjien  he  makes  this 
statement  general  with  "plus  scire  satiust  quam  loqui  servom  hominem." 
Here  there  is  a  change  from  the  first  to  the  third  person.  In  Per.  177  f. 
there  is  a  change  from  the  second  to  the  third.  The  maid  Sophoclidisca 
says  to  the  meretrix  "amas  pol  misera :  id  tuo'/  scatet  animus."  Then  she 
generalizes  with  "miser  est  qui  amat.  Certo  is  quidem  nihilist  /  qui  nihil 
amat;  quid  ei  homini  opus  vita  est!"  There  are  a  few  more  examples  of 
this  class. 

In  the  next  examples  the  form  of  the  general  repetition  corresponds  to 
that  of  the  particular  statement.  A  very  simple  example  occurs  in  M.  G. 
614  f.  "quodne  vobis  placeat,  displiceat  mihi  I"  Then  Pleusicles  makes 
it  more  general  with  "quis  homo  sit  magis  mens  quam  tu'sT'  A  more 
complicated  example  is  Bacch.  192  ff.  "quia  si  ilia  inventa  est  quam  ille 
amat,  recte  valet;/  si  non  inventa  est,  minus  valet  moribundusque  est." 
This  particular  thought  is  then  generalized  but  the  exact  form  of  the 
particular  is  retained.  Evidently  the  speaker  desired  to  keep  the  balance 
between  the  two  forms  clear,  "animast  amica  amanti :  si  abest,  nullus  est; 
si  adest,  res  nullast :  ipsus  est  nequam  et  miser." 

The  simplest  example  of  that  class  in  which  a  negative  occurs  either  in 
the  particular  or  in  the  general  statement  is  Pseu.  436  f.  "at  enim  nequi- 
quam  nevis ;  /vel  tu  ne  faceres  tale  in  adulescentia."  Then  Callipho  re- 
peats this  in  a  more  general  way,  affirmatively  "probum  patrem  esse 
oportet  qui  gnatum  suom  /  esse  probiorem  quam  ipsus  fuerit  postulet." 
A  rather  peculiar  case  is  Most.  693  fT.  "nunc  dormitum  iubet  me  ire: 
minume."  Then  a  few  lines  later  (696)  Simo  repeats  this  with  "  voluit 
in   cubiculum    abducere   me   anus."    This   particular   statement    is   clear 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  29 

enough — his  wife  has  failed  to  persuade  the  old  man  to  go  to  bed.  He 
then  makes  the  general  statement  negatively  "  non  bonust  somnus  de 
prandio.  apage."  This  is  repetition  not  so  much  of  what  he  has  actually 
said  in  the  particular  statement  as  of  that  which  he  has  implied.  An  ex- 
ample in  which  both  the  particular  statement  and  the  general  repetition 
are  negative  is  Rud.  226  f.  "  neque  quern  rogitem  responsorem  quemquam 
interea  convenio."  Ampelisca  makes  this  general  with  "neque  magis 
solae  terrae  solae  sunt  quam  haec  loca  atque  hae  regiones."  In  general 
this  type  of  repetition  is  not  very  satisfactory.  A  speaker  does  not  general- 
ize a  particular  thought  as  often  or  in  as  varied  a  form  as  he  particu- 
larizes and  amplifies  a  general  thought.  His  intention  is  usually  not  to 
clarify  his  thought  for  the  listener.  The  repetition  is  more  often  found 
in  a  soliloquy.  The  speaker  generalizes  his  thought  more  with  reference 
to  himself  than  with  reference  to  any  individual  listener.  The  examples, 
however,  are  not  numerous  enough  to  form  good  definite  classes,  dis- 
tinguished from  each  other,  and  only  in  the  case  of  those  few  just  pointed 
out  are  there  enough  sufficiently  like  each  other  to  be  considered  together. 
But  in  spite  of  this  the  type  of  repetition  is  as  clear  but  not  as  numerous 
as  the  general-particular  type. 

D.  SUMMARY  OF  DETAILS 

Similar  to  the  two  types  last  considered  is  that  type  of  repetition  in 
which  the  repetition  forms  a  summary  of  the  original  statement.  Here 
again  the  examples  are  not  numerous  enough  to  form  good  definite  classes 
and  as  a  type  it  is  more  analogous  to  the  particular-general  type  than  it  is 
to  the  general-particular.  To  make  this  type  clear  and  to  avoid  con- 
fusion with  the  particular-general,  consider  Bacch.  651  ff.  "  nequius  nil 
est  quam  egens  consili  servos,  nisi  habet  /  multipotens  pectus  /  ubi  quom- 
que  usus  siet,  pectore  expromat  suo./  nullus  frugi  esse  potest  homo,/  nisi 
qui  et  bene  facere  et  male  tenet./  inprobis  cum  inprobus  sit,  harpaget 
furibus  /furetur  quod  queat;  vorsipellem  frugi  convenit  /esse  hominem, 
pectus  quoi  sapit  /  bonus  sit  bonis,  malus  /  sit  malis."  Then  Chrysalus 
gives  a  summary  of  all  this  with  the  brief  "  utquomque  res  sit,  ita  animum 
habeat." 

In  this  type  of  repetition  the  examples,  as  has  been  said,  are  not  suf- 
ficient to  form  even  the  three  classes  which,  with  difficulty,  were  found 
in  the  particular-general  type.  Analogous  to  the  first  example  just  given 
is  Cur.  178  f.  "sibi  sua  habeant  regna  reges,  sibi  divitias  divites,/  sibi 
honores,  sibi  virtutes,  sibi  pugnas,  sibi  proelia."  Then  Phaedromus  gives 
a  summary  "dum  mi  apstineant  invidere,  sibi  quisque  habeant  quod  suom 
est."  In  the  Most.  729  f.  Simo  says  to  the  slave  "  musice  hercle  agitis 
aetatem,  ita  ut  decet,/  vino  et  victu,  piscatu  probo,  electili  /  vitam  coli- 
tis." Then  after  an  interruption  from  the  slave  he  makes  a  general  sum- 
mary with  "prospere  vobis  cuncta  usque  adhuc  processerunt."  In  the 
Menaechmi   40  f.   occurs   another  example  ''immutat  nomen   avos   huic 


30  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

gemino  alteri ;/  ita  ilium  dilexit  qui  surruptust  alterum  :/  illius  nomeu 
indit  illi  qui  domi  est,/  Menaechnio,  idem  quod  alteri  nomen  fuit."  Tlien 
a  few  lines  later  this  is  summed  up  with  "ne  mox  erretis,  iam  nunc 
praedico  prius  :/  idem  est  ambobus  nomen  geminis  fratribus." 

AH  of  these  examples  first  give  the  details,  then  repeat  the  thought 
with  a  general  summary.  Hence  the  difference  between  these  and  the  par- 
ticular-general type  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  the  former  the  particular  part 
is  given  in  detail,  in  the  latter  the  particular  part  is  a  single  statement. 
Cas.  290  f.  offers  a  form  which  is  rather  common  in  Plautus.  Here  Ly- 
sidamus  asks  "sed  utrum  nunc  tu  caelibem  te  esse  mavis  liberum  /  an 
maritum  servom  aetatem  degere  et  gnatos  tuosf"  Then  he  sums  up  with 
"optic  haec  tua  est:  utram  harum  vis  condicionem  accipe."  The  summary 
idea  here  is  not  very  strong ;  yet  the  example  seems  to  have  the  charac- 
teristic of  mo.st  of  the  other  examples.  In  such  an  example  as  Stichus  133 
f.  "Placet  ille  mens  mihi  mendicus  :  suos  rex  reginae  placet./  idem  animust 
in  paupertate  qui  olim  in  divitiis  fuit,"  it  seems  to  me  that  the  second  line 
repeats  the  thought  of  the  first  line  more  as  a  summary  than  as  a  merely 
general  statement  of  the  particular  thought  expressed  in  the  first  sentence. 
On  the  whole  this  type  of  repetition  demands  no  more  definite  classifi- 
cation or  treatment  than  the  mere  giving  of  a  number  of  examples  to 
make  the  type  clear  in  its  relation  to  other  types  which  afford  more  ex- 
amples. 

E.  NEGATIVE-AFFIRMATIVE.  AFFIRMATIVE- 
NEGATIVE 

The  last  types  into  which  repetitions  were  divided  were  those  in  which 
a  statement  is  first  made  negatively  and  is  then  repeated  affirmatively  and 
those  in  which  a  statement  is  made  affirmatively  while  the  repetition  is 
negative.  Of  the  two  types  the  latter  is  by  far  the  more  important.  In 
contrasting  these  two  types  the  same  points  are  true  which  were  noticed 
in  contrasting  the  type  in  which  a  general  statement  is  made  particular 
in  the  repetition  with  that  type  in  which  a  particular  statement  is  gen- 
eralized in  the  repetition.  On  considering  all  the  examples  it  has  been 
found  that  a  speaker  is  much  more  apt  to  repeat  negatively  an  affirmative 
statement  than  he  is  to  make  first  a  negative  statement  and  then  repeat 
this  affirmatively.  In  the  first  place  there  are  a  great  many  more  examples 
of  the  affirmative-negative  type  and  secondly  the  examples  of  this  type 
fall  much  more  readily  into  clearly  defined  classes  than  is  the  case  in  the 
negative-affirmative  type.  This  is  directly  opposite  to  the  usage  of  other 
Latin  writers.  It  is  much  more  common  to  find  a  thought  expressed  nega- 
tively and  then  repeated  affirmatively.  This  is  the  regular  rhetorical  usage. 
The  negative  expression  takes  the  place,  as  it  were,  of  a  subordinate 
clause,  that  is,  it  is  as  if  the  thought  were  expressed  in  a  concessive  clause. 
Then  this  is  repeated  affirmatively.  This  is  the  usage  in  practically  all 
other  Latin  writers.  In  Plautus,  however,  the  case  is  different.  Here  the 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  31 

natural  way  of  making  a  repetition  is  the  more  common.  It  is  more  natu- 
ral for  one  to  make  a  statement  affirmatively  and  then  repeat  it  nega- 
tively and  it  is  to  be  expected  that  in  such  a  type  of  literature  as  the  plays 
of  Plautus,  this  usage  should  prevail.  In  no  other  types  of  repetition  do  we 
find  a  more  important  bearing  on  the  style  of  Plautus  than  in  these 
two  types  which  prove  that  the  natural  way  of  expressing  and  repeating 
a  thought  prevails  over  the  more  rhetorical  way. 

I.  Negative-affirmative 

Consider  first  the  type  in  which  a  speaker  makes  a  negative  statement 
and  then  repeats  it  affirmatively.  A  good  general  example  of  this  type  is 
Ru.  131  f.  "non  hercle,  adulescens,  iam  hos  dies  complusculos  /  quem- 
quam  istic  vidi  sacruficare  neque  potest/  Clam  me  esse  si  qui  sacruficat:" 
Daemones  repeats  affirmatively  with  "nunc  intervallum  iam  hos  dies 
multos  fuit."  This  will  make  the  general  character  of  the  type  clear.  Let 
us  now  attem]:)t  a  classification.  In  the  Trin.  1 128  f.  Callicles  expostulates 
with  Charmides  who  is  praising  his  integrity  "si  quid  amicum  erga  bene 
feci  aut  consului  fideliter,  non  vidcor  incrnisse  landcm,  culpa  caniissc 
arbitror."  Here  there  is  a  close  balance  between  the  negative  and  affirma- 
tive presentation  of  the  same  thought.  It  is  not  possible  to  assert  without 
hesitation  that  there  is  repetition  in  "culpa  caruisse  arbitror."  It  may 
be  merely  contrast  without  repetition.  Two  other  examples  will  suffice 
to  make  this  class  clear.  In  the  Cas.  575  Lj^sidamus  becomes  panic-stricken 
and  expresses  his  fear,  first  negatively  and  then  affirmatively  "metuo  ne 
non  sit  surcla  atque  haec  audiverit."  Here  the  repetition  is  much  clearer 
than  in  the  first  example.  The  same  is  true  of  Rudens  883,  "non  sum  hospes, 
repudio  hospitium  tuom."  These  three  examples  with  twelve  others  fall 
into  a  distinct  class  which  is  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  phrases  are 
short  and  balanced.  In  the  next  examples  the  balance  is  more  pronounced 
because  both  the  negative  and  affirmative  sides  of  the  thought  take  the 
form  of  a  condition,  that  is,  the  form  of  the  negative  statement  is  retained 
in  the  affirmati\e  repetition  and  about  six  cases  were  found  in  which  this 
form  is  conditional.  In  the  Cur.  372  f.  Lyco  complains  "quantum  aeris 
mihi  sit  quantumque  alieni  siet:/  dives  sum,  si'  non  reddo  eis  quibus 
debeo."  He  presents  the  other  side  affirmatively  retaining  the  conditional 
form  "si  reddo  illis  quibus  debeo,  plus  alieni  est."  In  the  same  play  at  513 
f.  occurs  another  example  "indignis  si  male  dicitur,  male  dictum  id  esse 
dico."  This  is  repeated  affirmatively  with  "verum  si  dignis  dicitur,  bene 
dictumst  meo  quidem  animo."  In  this  second  example  there  is  ac- 
tually no  negative  word  in  the  original  statement  but  the  indignis  and  the 
male  express  a  negative  thought.  At  first  sight,  it  may  seem  in  these  ex- 
amples that  there  is  no  repetition,  that  they  are  rather  contrasts  than  repe- 
tition. But  in  actual  fact  the  first  statement  implies  the  second  and  for 
that  reason  the  second,  by  implication,  is  considered  as  a  repetition  of 
the  first. 


32  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

The  next  examples  show  a  different  characteristic.  Here  the  negative 
side  is  presented  in  a  phrase,  the  thought  of  which  is  then  repeated  in  a 
single  word.  In  the  Bacc.  982  f.  Chr)'salus  answers  the  "Quid  aitf"  of 
Nicobulus  with  "\erbum  nullum  fecit."  He  follows  this  with  "lacrumans 
tacitus  auscultabat  quae  ego  loquebar."  The  tacitus  repeats  the  thought 
of  the  "verbiim  nnllinn  fecit.  Another  example  occurs  in  Men.  123  "atque 
adeo  ne  me  nequiquam  ser\-es,  ob  eam  industriam  /  hodie  ducam  scortum 
ad  cenam  atque  aliquo  condicam  foras."  The  tndustriaui  repeats  the 
thought  of  the  ne  clause. 

The  following  cases  are  considered  separately  because  of  the  occurrence 
of  some  particular  negative  such  as  nemo,  ui/iil,  numqtiam,  ne,  etc.  The 
first  of  these  offers  the  best  examples.  In  the  Most.  704  f.  Simo  solilo- 
quizes "neminem  sollicitat  sopor."  This  negative  expression  is  repeated 
affirmatively  in  "omnibus  ire  dormitum  odio  est."  In  the  Stichus  674  f. 
Stephanium  gi\'es  another  example  in  "mirum  videri  nemini  vostrum 
volo,  spectatores,/  quid  ego  hinc  quae  illic  habito  exeam."  He  expresses 
this  affirmatively  with  "  f aciam  vos  certiores."  In  the  As.  756  the  Para- 
site writes  "  alienum  hominem  intro  mittat  neminem."  This  is  expressed 
affirmatively  in  "fores  occlusae  omnibus  sint  nisi  tibi." 

The  examples  in  which  "numquam"  occurs  in  the  negative  expression 
are  few — only  five — but  are  interesting  from  the  fact  that  the  negative 
expression  is  general  in  its  tone  while  the  affirmative  expression  is  more 
particular.  In  the  True.  231  f.  Astaphium  philosophizes  on  love  "neque 
umquam  erit  probus  quisquam  amator  nisi  qui  rei  inimicust  suae."  A  few- 
lines  later  this  same  thought  is  made  more  particular  affirmatively  "pro- 
bus  est  amator,  qui  relictis  rebus  rem  perdit' suam."  In  the  Cis.  48  f.  the 
Lena  says  "nam  si  quidem  ita  eris  ut  volo,  numquam  hac  aetate  fies."  She 
expresses  this  more  particularly  in  the  affirmative  expression,  "semper- 
que  istam  quam  nunc  habes  aetatulam  optinebis." 

There  are  a  few  examples  in  which  the  thought  is  first  expressed  nega- 
tively in  a  prohibition  and  then  affirmatively  with  an  imperative.  Here 
there  is  considerable  balance  as  in  Pseu.  232  "nihil  curassis,  liquido  es 
animo."  A  longer  example  occurs  in  Aul.  608  ff.  Euclio  is  hiding  his 
money  "tu  modo  ca^e  quoiquam  indicassis  aurum  meum  esse  istic,  Fides 

/ edepol  ne  illic  pulchram  praedam  agat,  si  quis  illam  invenerit  / 

aulam  onustam  auri ;  \'erum  id  te  quaeso  ut  prohibessis,  Fides."  The 
affirmative  follows  in  "vide,  Fides,  etiam  atque  etiam  nunc,  salvam  ut 
aulam  aps  te  auferam  :/  tuae  fide  concredidi  aurum,  in  tuo  loco  et  fano 
est  situm." 

Analogous  to  the  last  example  are  those  in  which  there  is  a  balance  be- 
tween ne  and  ut  as  in  Pseu.  764  f.  "nunc  ibo  ad  forum  atque  onerabo 
meis  praeceptis  Simiam,  quid  agat,  ne  quid  titubet."  The  thought  of  the 
ne  clause  is  then  repeated  in  "docte,  ut  hanc  ferat  fallaciam."  The 
same  is  true  of  Most.  422  f.  where  Tranio  bids  the  slave  tell  his  master 
"  facturum  me  ut  ne  etiam  aspicere  aedis  audeat,/  capite  obvoluto  ut 
fugiat  cum  summo  metu."  Here  the  ut  clause  does  add  something  to  the 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  33 

thought  of  the  ne  clause  though  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the 
old  man  would  stand  in  front  of  the  house  if  he  didn't  dare  look  at  it. 

The  examples  which  follow  are  characterized  by  the  occurrence  of  a 
comparative  in  either  the  negative  or  affirmative  expression  while  a  posi- 
tive form  appears  in  the  other.  In  the  Rud.  359  f.  Tranio  applauds  Nep- 
tune "nee  te  aleator  nullus  est  sapientior :  profecto  nimis  lepide  iecisti 
bolum."  Another  good  example  of  this  kind  of  repetition  occurs  in  Most. 
270  f.  "non  videor  vidisse  lenam  callidiorem  ullam  alteras."  Philo- 
laches  makes  this  affirmative,  dropping  the  comparative  idea  "  ut  lepide 
atque  astute  in  mentem  \enit  de  speculo  malae."  There  are  about  six  ex- 
amples of  this  kind  of  repetition  in  Plautus.  Here,  as  in  all  the  other 
classes  of  this  type  of  repetition,  it  is  noticeable  that  there  are  very  few 
examples. 

There  are  some  examples  in  which  there  is  a  doubling  of  the  negative 
or  affirmative,  sometimes  of  both.  In  the  Capt.  401  f.  we  find  the  repeti- 
tion taking  the  peculiar  form  of  negative  repeated  by  affirmative  and 
then  by  another  negative  as  "neque  te  commeruisse  culpam  (neque  me 
ad^•orsatum  tibi)  /  beneque  ero  gessisse  morem  in  tantis  aerumnis  tamen; 
/  neque  med  umquam  deseruisse  te  neque  factis  neque  fide  rebus  in  dubiis, 
egenis."  A  different  form  is  shown  in  the  Amph.  237  f.  "sed  fugam  in  se 
tamen  nemo  convortitur  /  nee  recedit  loco  quin  statim  rem  gerat."  Then 
this  same  thought  is  repeated  twice  in  affirmative  sentences  "animam 
amittunt  priusquam  loco  demigrent:/  quisque  ut  steterat  iacet  o|Dtinetque 
ordinem." 

The  last  examples  to  be  treated  under  this  type  of  negative-affirmative 
repetition  show  no  actual  negative  in  the  first  clause  but  seem  on  the 
whole  to  fall  within  this  type  because  of  the  essentially  negative  character 
of  this  first  statement.  When  in  the  Most.  288  f.  Scapha  rebukes  her  mis- 
tress with  "purpura  aetati  occultandaest,  aurum  turpi  mulieri,"  this  is 
practically  a  negative  statement,  the  thought  of  which  is  then  repeated 
affirmatively  in  "pulchra  mulier  nuda  erit  quam  purpurata  pulchrior." 
The  same  is  true  of  Bacc.  412  f.  "nam  apsque  te  esset,  ego  ilium  haberem 
/  rectum  ad  ingenium  bonum  /.  Nunc  propter  te  tuamque  pravos  factus 
est  fiduciam  /  Pistoclerus."  It  may  be  stated  again  that  on  the  whole 
this  type  of  repetition  in  which  a  negative  statement  is  repeated  affirma- 
tively does  not  show  examples  in  such  number  as  to  make  the  classes  satis- 
factory. 

2.  Affirmative-negative 

The  class  which  shows  the  opposite  arrangement  to  that  of  the  nega- 
tive-affirmative class  offers  considerably  more  material.  Here  a  speaker 
first  makes  a  statement  affirmatively  and  then  repeats  it  negatively.  Not 
only  are  the  examples  of  this  type  more  numerous  but  the  classes  in  which 
these  examples  may  be  divided  are  much  clearer  cut  and  the  treatment 
of  this  type,  for  this  reason,  is  much  more  satisfactory  and  on  the  whole 
the  results  of  the  investigation  of  this  type  arid  the  preceding  tend  to 


34  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

prove  that  a  speaker  is  more  apt  to  repeat  an  affirmative  thought  nega- 
tively than  he  is  to  first  make  a  statement  negatively  and  then  repeat  it 
affirmatively. 

In  the  types  of  repetition  so  far  considered,  in  each  there  were  found 
examples  in  which  the  thought  as  first  expressed  in  a  single  word  was  re- 
peated in  a  clause.  There  are  a  few  examples  of  this  same  class  found  in 
the  tvpe  of  repetition  now  under  discussion.  In  the  Most.  627  f.  Tranio 
tries  to  soothe  the  old  man  Theopropides  with  "  Paululum  /  Quasi  quad- 
raginta  minas."  The  thought  of  the  Paulnlmn  is  repeated  negatively  in  the 
prohibition  "ne  sane  id  multum  censeas."  This  is  said  in  order  to  forestall 
any  objection  from  the  old  man.  In  the  Cur.  20  f.  Phaedromus  tries  to  be 
funny  and  says  of  the  ostiuiii,  "bellissumum  hercle  vidi  et  taciturnis- 
sumum  "  repeating  the  thought  of  the  last  adjective  in  the  negati\'e  clause 
"numquam  ullum  verbum  muttit."  This  he  then  explains  with  "quom 
aperitur,  tacet,/quom  ilia  noctu  clanculum  ad  me  exit,  tacet."  A  similar  ex- 
ample is  Pseu.  385  f.  "ad  eam  rem  usust  hominem  astutum,  doctum,  cau- 
tum  et  callidum."  In  the  next  line  the  thought  of  the  adjectives  is  repeated 
in  "non  qui  vigilans  dormiat."  A  rather  more  complicated  example  oc- 
curs in  the  Pseu.  133  f.  Ballio  rebukes  the  slaves  with  "exite,  agite  exite, 
ignavi,  male  habiti  et  male  conciliati."  The  thought  of  these  last  two 
phrases  is  then  amplified  in  the  negative  "quorum  numquam  quicquam 
quoiquam  venit  in  mentem  ut  recte  faciant."  In  this  example  the  male 
habiti  is  treated  as  expressing  a  thought  which  might  have  been  ex- 
pressed by  a  single  word,  such  as  igiiavi.  Altog'ether  there  are  about 
fifteen  examples  of  this  class  of  repetition  in  which  the  thought  of  a 
single  word  is  repeated  negatively  in  a  phrase  or  clause. 

In  all  the  types  so  far  considered  it  was  found  that  there  were  a  great 
many  examples  in  which  a  certain  balance  was  maintained  between  the 
repetition  and  the  original  statement.  This  balance  varied  in  dififerent 
examples.  Sometimes  it  consisted  merely  of  the  fact  that  the  form  of  the 
original  statement  was  retained  in  the  repetition.  Sometimes  there  was  a 
closer  balance,  even  so  much  as  word  for  word.  This  is  true  of  the  present 
type  of  repetition  with  the  same  variety  in  the  strength  of  the  balance. 
First  consider  the  examples  in  which  the  balance  occurs  in  two  phrases 
in  the  same  sentence.  In  the  Most.  348  Tranio  soliloquizes  without  seeing 
the  revellers,  "  occidit  spes  nostra,  nusquam  stabulum  est  confidentiae." 
Here  the  balance  is  word  for  word — with  the  addition  of  the  negative. 
In  the  following  negative  sentence  "nee  Salus  nobis  saluti  iam  esse,  si 
cupiat  potest,"  the  thought  is  repeated  in  a  more  general  fashion.  In  the 
Rud.  995  Gripus  replies  to  Trachalio's  objection  that  there  is  no  fish 
such  as  viduluvi  pisccm,  "verum  rare  capitur,  nuUus  minus  saepe  ad 
terram  venit."  Here  again  the  balance  is  obvious  between  rare  and 
minus  saepe,  capitur  and  ad  terram  venit.  In  the  Bacc.  735  f.  Chrysalus 
dictates  "Chrysalus  mihi  usque  quaque  loquitur  nee  recte,  pater./ 
quia  tibi  aurum  reddidi  et  quia  non  te  defrudaverim."  Here  the  balance 
is    very    clear  because    the   thought    is    expressed    and    repeated    in    the 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  35 

same  kind  of  a  clause — "quia — quia;  tibi — te;  aurum  reddidi — non 
defrudaverim."  Another  example  will  perhaps  make  this  class  sufficiently 
clear  though  it  is  noticeable  that  in  this  last  example  the  balance  is  not  as 
obvious  as  in  the  preceding  examples.  In  the  Trin.  188  f.  Megaronides 
cries  "occlusti  linguam,  nihil  est  qui  respondeam."  Here  the  linguam 
is  balanced  by  the  qui  clause  and  the  occlusti  by  the  ;//////  est.  To  get 
a  clearer  impression  of  this  class  take  Amph.  409  where  Sosia  asks 
"quid  igitur  ego  dubito,  aut  cur  non  intro  eo  in  nostram  domum!"  Here 
there  is  a  certain  explanatory  element  in  the  repetition  but  the  form  of 
the  original  question  is  retained  in  the  repetition.  In  this  same  connection 
we  might  consider  an  example  in  which  the  balance  is  retained  but  in 
which  no  actual  negative  occurs,  as  Most.  188  f.  "tu  ecastor  erras  quae 
quidem  ilium  expectes  unum  atque  illi  morem  praecipue  sic  geras  atque 
alios  asperneris."  The  last  phrase  is  practically  the  negati\-e  of  the  ////  .  .  . 
geras.  There  are  a  great  many  examples  of  this  class. 

Balance  between  the  original  statement  and  the  repetition  is  shown  not 
only  in  phrases  in  the  same  sentence,  but  also  in  two  different  sentences. 
The  balance  here  is  often  much  clearer  than  in  the  previous  class.  In  the 
Trin.  973  ff.  the  sycophant  rebukes  Charmides  "postquam  ego  me  aurum 
ferre  dixi,  post  tu  factus  Charmides."  This  thought  is  then  repeated  nega- 
tively "prius  tu  non  eras  quam  auri  feci  mentionem."  The  first  sentence 
would  be  clear  enough  to  the  listener  but  the  sycophant  wants  to  confirm 
himself  in  the  belief  that  this  is  not  the  real  Charmides.  In  the  Most.  239 
f.  Philematium's  desire  is  quite  different.  She  threatens  Scapha  first  af- 
firmatively "si  quid  tu  in  ilium  bene  voles  loqui,  id  loqui  licebit."  But 
she  feels  that  this  may  not  be  enough  to  prevent  Scapha  from  speaking 
anything  abusive  so  she  threatens  her  in  the  negative  with  "nee  recte  si 
illi  dixeras,  iam  ecastor  vapulabis."  Here  there  is  some  additional  thought 
but  the  balance  is  clear.  The  same  is  true  of  As.  188  f.  "si  ecastor  nunc 
habeas  quod  des,  alia  verba  praehibeas."  Cleareta  then  adds  negatively 
"nunc  quia  nihil  babes,  maledictis  te  eam  ductare  postulas."  Here  there 
is  an  additional  thought  though  the  connection  in  which  these  lines  are 
spoken  would  make  the  first  statement  imply  the  second  to  the  listener. 
The  balance  is  between  the  ^7'  and  the  quia  clauses  and  the  alia  verba  prae- 
hibeas and  the  maledictis  te  eam  ductare  postulas.  In  the  Poe.  1186  f. 
and  1 20 1  f.  the  balance  is  even  clearer  as  here  almost  the  exact  words 
are  repeated.  Adelphasium  warns  her  sister  "  eo  sumus  gnatae  genere  ut 
deceat  nos  esse  a  culpa  castas."  Then  later  she  puts  this  negatively  "non 
eo  genere  sumus  prognatae,  tam  etsi  sumus  servae,  soror,  ut  deceat  nos 
facere  quicquam  quod  homo  quisquam  inrideat."  Here  she  amplifies  the 
thought  of  culpa  in  the  clause  quod  .  .  .  inrideat.  There  are  about  six- 
teen examples  of  this  class  of  repetition  in  Plautus. 

In  the  t}'pe  in  which  a  thought  was  first  expressed  negatively  and  then 
repeated  affirmatively  attention  was  called  to  those  examples  in  which  a 
prohibition  or  command  occurs.  There  are  a  number  of  such  examples  in 
the  affirmative-negative  type.  A  very  simple  example  which  is  common 


36  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

in  Plautus  occurs  in  the  As.  638  "bono  animo  es,  ne  formida."  Nothing 
is  added  to  the  thought  of  the  command.  The  listener  is,  however,  more 
impressed  when  the  command  is  first  made  affirmatively  and  then  nega- 
tively. A  similar  example  is  Mer.  113  where  Acanthio  cries  "abige  aps 
te  lassitudinem,"  making  this  thought  negative  in  "cave  pigritiae  prae- 
vorteris."  The  balance  between  the  command  and  the  prohibition  is  clear. 
Another  example  will  perhaps  be  sufficient,  Pseu.  127  "omnibus  amicis 
notisque  edico  meis  /  in  hunc  diem  a  me  ut  caveant,  ne  credant  mihi." 
Here  there  is  a  variation  from  the  direct  command  and  prohibition  to  a 
verb  edico  which  gives  the  force  of  a  command  and  prohibition.  Alto- 
gether about  fifteen  examples  of  this  class  were  found  in  Plautus. 

Somewhat  analogous  to  the  examples  just  considered  are  those  which 
are  marked  by  the  occurrence  of  a  ne  in  the  negative  repetition.  Here 
the  variation  occurs  in  the  form  which  the  expression  of  the  original 
thought  takes.  In  the  Most.  539  f:  Tranio  is  panic-striken  "manufesta 
res  est,  nisi  quid  occurro  prius  /  hoc  ne  senex  resciscat."  The  ne  clause 
repeats  in  negati\-e  form  the  thought  of  the  maiuifesta  res  est.  In  the 
Bacc.  342  Nicobulus  comments  "censebam  me  ecfugisse  a  vita  mari- 
tuma,"  repeating  this  idea  negatively  in  "ne  navigarem  tandem  hoc  aeta- 
tis  senex."  There  are  only  six  cases  of  this  class  in  Plautus. 

Many  examples  of  every  type  of  repetition  in  Plautus  show  a  distinct 
explanatory  element  in  the  repetition.  This  explanatory  force  may  be 
made  clearer  by  the  occurrence  of  a  nam.  The  type  under  considera- 
tion shows  about  twenty  examples  of  this  class  of  repetition.  In  this  class 
are  many  examples  which  might  be  grouped  under  the  classes  already 
noticed  but  it  has  seemed  best  to  differentiate  those  examples  in  which 
the  repetition  does  not  show  any  great  explanatory  effect  and  those  which 
have  this  characteristic.  Take  first  two  examples  in  which  the  explan- 
atory element  in  the  repetition  is  not  increased  and  made  obvious  by  the 
occurrence  of  a  nam.  In  the  Most.  107 1  f.  Theopropides  tells  how  he 
will  trick  Tranio  "sensim  mittam  lineam."  He  explains  this  negatively 
with  "  dissimulabo  me  horum  quicquam  scire."  Here  the  negative  is  im- 
plied. The  context  would  show  clearly  enough  to  the  spectator  what 
Theopropides  is  planning  to  do  when  he  says  "sensim  mittam  lineam"  but 
the  next  sentence  is  perhaps  more  necessary  than  is  the  case  in  Rud.  269 
f.  where  Ptolemacratium  rebukes  the  girls  "  ergo  aequius  vos  erat  /  candi- 
datas  venire  hostiatasque."  She  offers  a  note  of  explanation  negatively 
with  "ad  hoc  /  fanum  ad  istuc  modum  non  veniri  solet."  Most  of  the  ex- 
amples, however,  show  a  nam  in  the  repetition.  In  the  Most.  237  f.  Philo- 
laches  is  listening  to  Scapha's  advice  to  Philematium  and  in  his  anger 
threatens  "in  te  hercle  certumst  principi  ut  sim  parens  experiri,"  explain- 
ing this  more  definitely  with  "nam  neque  edes  quicquam  neque  bibes 
apud  me  his  decern  diebus."  In  the  Stich.  155  f.  Gelasimus  complains  "Fa- 
mem  ego  fuisse  suspicor  matrem  mihi,"  repeating  this  negatively  in 
"nam  postquam  natus  sum,  satur  numquam  fui."  Another  example  simi- 
lar to  these  is  Poe.    1053   "ergo  hie  apud  med  hospitium  praebebitur," 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  37 

this  being  repeated  in  "nam  hau  repudio  hospitium  neque  Carthaginem." 
Here  something  is  added  to  the  thought.  The  nam  clause  does  more  than 
merely  repeat  and  explain  the  first  statement. 

The  most  interesting  examples  of  this  type,  however,  are  those  which 
show  considerably  more  variety  and  can  be  classed  in  one  group  only 
by  the  fact  that  nequc  connects  the  original  statement  and  repetition. 
Neque  is  one  of  the  copulative  conjunctions  which  denote  union  and 
seems  to  connect  both  the  sentences  and  their  meaning.  Because  of  this 
fact  in  the  examples  now  to  be  considered  there  will  be  found  a  closer  con- 
nection between  the  original  statement  and  the  repetition.  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  stated  that  in  these  examples  the  repetition  merely  presents  in 
negative  form  the  original  statement.  There  is  considerable  variety  as  the 
different  examples  will  show.  One  of  the  best  examples  is  in  the  Most.  766 
f.  where  Simo  remarks  of  the  situation  of  his  house  "immo  edepol  vero, 
quom  usquequaque  umbra  est,  tamen  /  sol  semper  hie  est  usque  a  mari  ad 

vesperum nee  mi  umbra  hie  usquamst  nisi  si  in  puteo  quaepiamst." 

Here  the  repetition  does  practically  nothing  more  than  to  repeat  in  nega- 
tive form  the  original  statement. 

In  the  Most.  174  f.  the  example  is  a  little  different.  Philolaches,  in  con- 
cealment, tells  what  he  will  do  to  Scapha  "ergo  ob  istoc  verbum  te, 
Scapha,  donabo  ego  hodie — aliqui."  This  is  repeated  negatively  "nee 
patiar  te  istanc  gratiis  laudasse  quae  placet  mi."  Another  example  of  the 
same  kind  occurs  in  the  Capt.  985  "quia  mos  est  oblivisci  hominibus  / 
neque  novisse  quoiius  nihili  sit  faciunda  gratia."  In  both  these  examples 
the  balance  between  the  original  statement  and  the  repetition  is  clear. 

In  the  Most.  235  f.  Scapha  is  trying  to  make  clear  to  Philematium  how 
precarious  her  situation  is  "  iam  ista  quidem  apsumpta  res  erit."  Here  she 
makes  a  general  statement  which  she  follows  with  the  causes  "  dies  noc- 
tesque  estur,  bibitur  /  neque  quisquam  parsimoniam  adhibet."  Then 
having  analyzed  it  both  affirmatively  and  negatively  she  sums  it  all  up 
in  a  short  phrase  "  sagina  plane  est."  Another  good  example  occurs  in 
the  Amph.  1053  ff.  "spes  atque  opes  vitae  meae  iacent  sepultae  in  pec- 
tore."  This  thought  Bromia  repeats  negatively  in  "neque  ullast  confiden- 
tia  iam  in  corde,  quin  amiserim."  In  the  Rud.  674  f.  Palaestra  wails  "sed 
nunc  sese  ut  ferunt  res  fortunaeque  nostrae,/  par  moriri  est."  She  makes 
this  general  with  "neque  est  melius  morte  in  malis  rebus  miseriis."  In  all 
these  examples,  the  connection  is  very  close  between  the  original  state- 
ment and  the  negative  repetition.  There  are  about  fifty  examples  of  this 
class  in  which  the  neque  connects  the  original  statement  and  the  repeti- 
tion. 

The  monologue  of  Philolaches  in  the  Mostellaria  has  furnished  ex- 
amples for  the  other  types  of  repetition  and  the  discussion  of  this  type  of 
affirmative-negative  may  be  closed  with  the  citation  of  another  example 
from  this  monologue.  In  92  f.  Philolaches  remarks  "ei  rei  argumenta 
dicam  /  atque  hoc  baud  videtur  veri  simile  vobis,/  at  ego  id  faciam  esse 
ita  ut  credatis"  repeating  this  thought  with  "profecto  esse  ita  ut  praedico 


38  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

vera  \incam."  But  not  satisfied  with  this,  he  repeats  it  negatively,  "atque 
hoc  vosmet  ipsi,  scio  proinde  uti  nunc  /ego  esse  autumno,  quando  dicta 
audietis  /  mea,  haud  aliter  id  dicetis."  These  repetitions  are  in  keeping 
with  the  character  or  situation  of  Philolaches  and  do  not  arise  from  a 
desire  to  make  his  thought  clear.  It  is  characteristic  of  him  to  vacillate, 
to  be  undecided  what  to  do  and  naturally  he  likes  to  hear  himself  talk  as 
a  sort  of  consolation  for  his  bad  actions. 

This  ends  the  first  part  of  the  paper  in  which  repetitions,  as  found  in 
Plautus,  were  classified  and  discussed.  The  introduction  summed  up  these 
classes  but  before  passing  to  the  second  part  of  the  paper  in  which  the 
stylistic  variations  of  these  classes  will  be  discussed  it  may  be  well  to 
make  clear  once  more  the  diflferent  types  of  repetition.  First  there  were 
the  so-called  equivalent  repetitions  which  were  divided  into  those  in 
which  there  was  no  interruption  and  those  in  which  an  interruption 
occurs.  Secondly  the  type  in  which  a  general  statement  was  made  particu- 
lar in  the  repetition.  Thirdly  the  type  in  which  a  particular  statement  was 
made  general;  fourthly  the  type  in  which  the  repetition  is  a  summary  of 
the  original  statement,  and  fifthly  the  type  in  which  a  negati\'e  statement 
was  made  afifirmative  in  the  repetition  or  vice  versa. 


III.  STYLISTIC  VARIATIONS   IN  USE 

A.   EMPLOYMENT  OF  THE  CLASSES 
DISCUSSED  IN   II 

THE  first  part  of  this  paper  dealt  with  the  characteristics  of  the  five 
groups  into  which  repetitions  in  Plautus  were  divided.  The  second 
part  will  deal  with  the  stylistic  variations  in  use.  In  many  examples,  in  fact, 
in  most  of  the  examples  given  in  the  first  part  of  the  paper,  the  speaker's 
chief  aim  was  to  repeat  a  statement  in  a  stronger  form  to  force  his  mean- 
ing more  clearl}^  upon  the  listener.  This  desire,  however,  did  not  prevent 
him  from  varying  the  expression  of  the  original  statement  when  he  re- 
peated the  thought.  But  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  cannot  be  said  that 
the  speaker — that  is,  Plautus — had  any  great  feeling  for  improving  the 
stylistic  expression  or  that  any  artistic  feeling  caused  a  repetition.  In  what 
immediately  follows,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  treat  of  certain  forms 
of  repetition  in  Plautus  which  have  a  closer  bearing  on  the  study  of  his 
style. 

There  were  found  in  Plautus  four  stylistic  variations  of  repetitions. 
The  first  type  is  that  in  which  a  statement  is  made,  then  another  thought 
is  expressed,  this  being  followed  by  a  repetition  of  the  first  statement. 
Finally  the  speaker  repeats  the  thought  of  the  original  second  statement. 
We  find  a  scheme  of  repetition  which  might  be  expressed  by  a-b-a-b.  The 
second  type  is  that  in  which  a  speaker  makes  a  statement  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  expression  of  an  entirely  different  thought  which  is  re- 
peated. Finally  the  speaker  repeats  the  first  statement.  Here  the  scheme 
may  be  expressed  a-b-b-a.  The  third  type  is  that  in  which  a  statement 
is  made.  The  speaker  drops  this  thought  for  a  moment  and  then  after 
making  another  statement  he  returns  to  the  repetition  of  the  first  state- 
ment. Here  the  scheme  is  a-b-a.  The  fourth  type  is  that  in  which  we  find 
a  distinct  play  on  words.  In  this  the  speaker  has  a  distinct  stylistic  mo- 
tive in  playing  on  the  meaning  of  certain  words  to  make  his  thought 
clearer.  All  four  groups  show  a  clear  stylistic  variation  and  merely  dis- 
close the  employment  which  may  be  made  of  the  groups  which  were  dis- 
cussed in  the  first  part  of  the  paper.  The  examples  are  much  fewer  and  the 
special  characteristics  of  each  example  are,  therefore,  more  noticeable 
than  was  the  case  in  the  early  groups. 

I.  a-b-a-b 

Consider  first  that  type  in  which  one  statement  is  followed  by  a  second 
statement,  the  repetition  of  the  first  being  followed  by  the  repetition  of 


40  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

the  second.  These  examples  follow  the  scheme  a-b-a-b.  Thirty-three 
cases  of  this  type  were  found  in  Plautus,  not  so  widely  different  from 
each  other  but  that  distinct  characteristics  could  be  found  differentiating 
certain  examples  into  a  group.  It  is  noticeable  that  considerable  variety 
appears  in  this  type  of  stylistic  variation. 

The  first  group  noticed  was  that  in  which  the  phraseology  of  the  rep- 
etition of  "a"  was  close  to  the  original  statement,  while  in  the  case  of  "b" 
and  its  repetition  it  was  different.  Nine  examples  showed  this  character- 

(a) 
istic.  In  the  Most.  562  Tranio  laments  " nc  ego  sum  miser  scclcstiis,  iiatus 

(t>)  ,  (a) 

dis  iiiiinicis  ouiiiibus  / .  iam  illo  praesente  adibit  /  ne  ego  homo  sum  miser 

(b) 
/  iia  et  liiiie  et  ilhne  mi  exhibent  uegotium."  Here  the  ne  ego  sum  miser 
is  repeated  almost  exactly  while  the  phraseology  of  natus  dis  inimicis 
ovinibus  differs  quite  considerably  from  ita  et  hinc  et  illinc  mi  exhi- 
bent negotitivt.  Again  in  the  True.  23  ff.  Deniarchus  soliliquizes  "non 
omnis  aetas  ad  perdiscendum  sat  est  /  amanti  dum  id  perdiscat,  qnot 

(a) 

pereat  modis; /  neque  eam  rationem  eapse  umquam  educet  Venus,/  quam 

penes  amantum  summa  summarum   redit,/   quot  avians  excmplis  liidi- 

(a)  (b) 

ficeturj  quot  modis  pereat  quotquc  exoretur  exorabilis."  Here  there  is 
exact  repetition  of  quot  modis  pereat  while  the  thought  of  quot  amans 
exemplis  ludificetur  is  the  same  but  is  expressed  differently  in  quotque 
exoretur  exorabilis. 

In  the  Men.  719  f.  the  matrona  in  her  anger  exclaims  "non  ego  istaec 

flagitia  possum  perpeti  /  jiam  vied  aetatem  viduam  esse  viavelim  /  quam 
istaec  flagitia  tna  pati  quae  tu  facis."  Menaechmus  II  goads  her  on  and 

she  repeats  "quas  fabulasf  non,  inquam,  patiar  praeterhac  quin  vidua 

.(b) 
vivam  quam  tuos  mores  perferam."  Here  non  ego  istaec  flagitia  possum 
perpeti  is  repeated  in  slightly  different  terms  in  the  non  patiar  while 
nam    ....   facis  is  repeated  in  the  quin  clause.   It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  repetition  is  not  as  close  as  in  the  previous  example.  Neither  is  it  so 

(a)  (b) 

close  in  the  Pseudolus   502    f.   "quia  illud  malum  aderat,  istuc  aberat 

longius  /illud  erat  praesens,  hide  erant  dieculae."  But  there  is  a  closer 
similarity  in  the  phraseology  of  qui  illud  malum  aderat  and  illud  erat 
praesens  than  there  is  between  the  other  parts  of  the  two  sentences. 

Corresponding  to  this  group  are  those  examples  which  show  a  phrase- 
ology in  "b"  and  its  repetition  which  is  close,  while  that  of  "a"  and  its  rep- 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  41 

etition  is  different.  In  the  Aul.  409  ff.  Congrio  complains  "ita  vie  miscriim 

(a)  (b) 

et  meos  discipulos  fustibus  male  contuderunt,/  totus  doleo  atque  oppido 

(a)  (^). 

peril,  ita  me  iste  habuit  senex  gymnasium./  attat  perii  liercle  ego  miser." 

Here  the  phraseology  of  totus  doleo  atque  oppido  perii  and  attat  perii 
hercle  ego  miser  is  close  while  the  phraseology  of  ita  me  ....  con- 
tuderunt  differs  considerably  from  the  repetition  of  this  thought — ita 
me  ....  gymnasium.  Again  in  the  Amph.  265  Mercury  says  "quando 

(a)  (b) 

imago  est  liuius  in  me,  certum  est  eludere  homineui."  In  295  he  repeats 

(a)  (b) 

this  in  "timet  homo,  deludam  ego  ilium."  Here  the  phraseology  of  timet 
homo  differs  considerably  from  quando  ....  in  me  although  the 
thought  is  the  same.  Deltidam  ego  ilium  is  not  very  different  from 
certum  est  eludere  hoviinem.  These  are  the  only  two  examples   found. 

In  the  last  two  examples  the  phraseology  of  the  repetition  of  "b" 
differed  from  that  of  the  original  statement.  There  are  also  examples  in 
which  the  phraseology  of  both  "a"  and  "b"  of  the  repetition  differs  from 
that  of  the  original  statements.  In  the  Cur.  187  f.  Palindrus  says  " pariter 

(a)  (b)  (a) 

hos  perire  amando  video,  uterque  insaniunt./  viden  ut  misere  moliuntur? 

(b) 

nequeunt  complecti  satis."  Here  the  repetition  a-b-a-b  is  clear  enough 
but  the  phraseology  is  different.   Again  in  the   Foe.   674  the  advocati 

assert  "neque  nos  hortari  neque  dehortari  decet  hominem  peregrinum. 

ttiam  rem  tu  ages,  si  sapis  /  nos  tibi  palumbem  ad  aream  usque  adduxi- 

(a)  (b) 

mus."   In  this  tuam  rem  tu  ages  si  sapis  is  clear  enough  but  they  re- 

peat  the  thought  with  very  different  phraseology  in  nunc  te  ilium  meliust 

capere,  si  captum  esse  vis.  Here  the  repetition  does  add  something  to  the 
original  statement  in  the  way  of  explanation  but  the  thought  of  the 
original  statement,  taken  in  its  context,  is  clear  enough.  In  the  Pseu.  601 

(a) 
f.  Pseudolus  catches  sight  of  Harpax  and  reflects  "novo  consilio  nunc  mi 

.(b) 
opus  est,/  nova  res  haec  subito  mi  obiectast."  He  repeats  this  not  very 

(.^).    .       . 
closely  with  "hoc  praevortar  principio;  illaec  omnia  inissa  habeo  quae 

(b) 

ante  agere  occepi." 

Another  example  will  show  how  different  the  phraseology  of  the  rep- 


42  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

etition  may  be  from  that  of  the  original  statement.   In  the  True.    733 

Astaphium  rebukes  Diniarchus  "plus  enim  es  intro  missus  quoni  dabas: 

sine  vicissivi  qui  daiii  operant  oh  illud  quod  /  dant  operis  utier."  Then 

(^).    .   . 

she  repeats  with  entirely  different  phraseology  " litteras  didicisti:  quanda 

(b) 

scis,  sine  alios  discere."  There  are  seven  examples  of  this  group  found  in 

Plautus. 

The  next  group  to  be  considered  is  that  in  which  there  is  a  close  bal- 
ance between  the  original  statement  and  the  repetition.  Six  examples  of 
this  type  were  found  in  Plautus.  In  the  As.  504  ff.  Cleareta  asks  "nequeon 

(a)  .(b) 

ego  ted  inierdictis  facere  inansuetein  meisf  /  an  ita  tu  cs  animata  ut  qui 
expers  matris  imperio  siesf"  After  an  interruption  from  Philaenium  he 

(^). 
repeats  with  "an  decorum  est  advorsari  meis  te  praeceptis?  /  hoccine  est 

(b) 

pietatem  colcre,  viatris  imperiuvi  winuere?"  A  closer  balance  is  seen  in 

(a) 
the  Cis.  653.  Lampadio  savs  " nulla m  ego  me  vidisse  credo  viagis  anum 

excruciabilem  /  quam  illaec  est:  quae  dudum  fassast  mihi,  quaene  in- 
fitias  eat?"  The  first  part  of  this  is  repeated  in  660  f.  "  scelestiorem  in 
terra  nullam  esse  alteram,"  the  second  in  "omnia  infitiare  iam  quae 
dudum  conjessa  est  viihi."  The  same  close  balance  is  seen  in  the  Amph. 

(a)  (b) 

641  ff.  "sed  Jioc  me  heat  saltern  /  quoin  perduellis  vicit  et  domum  laudis 

(a) 
compos  revenit."  Alcumena  repeats  the  first  part  in  "id  solacio  est"  and 

(b) 
the  second  part  in  "dum  viodo  laude  parta  domum  recipiat  se."  Here 
there  is  a  close  balance  between  both  "a"  and  "b"  and  their  repetitions.  The 
best  example  occurs  in  the  Most.  816  f.  845  f.  Theopropides  cries  "  a  page 

(a)  (b) 

istinn  perductorem,  non  placet,  quidquid  est.  Erraho  potisquam  perdue- 

(a) 
tet  quispiam."  Later  he  repeats  with  "  apage  istum  a  me  perductorem, 

(b)     . 
nil  moror  ductarier.  quidquid  est,  erraho  potius  quam  perductet  quis  pi- 
am."  Here  the  balance  is  very  noticeable — so  much  so  that  if  the  repeti- 
tion had  occurred  in  closer  proximity  to  the  original  statement,  it  might 
be  considered  as  dittography. 

Another  group  belonging  to  this  stylistic  variation  is  characterized  by 
the  fact  that  there  is  a  change  in  person.  In  the  Cis.  366  Gymnasium 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  43 

says  "jiiiser  errat  ut  ego  dixi.  lepidast  materies."  Then  he  repeats  these 

(a)  (b) 

two  statements  with  " ludam  ego  hunc,  nam  occaslo  videtur."  In  this  ex- 
ample the  person  of  "a"  changes  in  the  repetition  to  the  first  but  repeats 
the  thought  which  was  expressed  in  the  third  person  in  the  original  state- 
ment. The  person  of  "b"  remains  the  same.  Another  example  occurs  in 
the  Trin.  692  ff.,  "  quis  me  improbior  perhibeatur  esse?  haec  famigeratio 

/  te  honestet,  me  conlutulentet,  si  sine  dote  duxeris."  Lesbonicus  repeats 

,     .    .     .      ^^)  .  .    .      (^) 

this  changing  the  person,   " tihi  sit  emoliimentuin   honoris,   miJii   quod 

obiectent  siet." 

The  last  group  shows  a  balance  which  is  more  noteworthy  than  the 
balance  noticed  in  some  of  the  other  examples.  The  characteristic  which 
differentiates  the  four  examples  of  this  class  from  the  groups  already  dis- 
cussed is  that  here  we  have  the  thought  first  expressed  by  a  single  word 
and  then  repeated  in  a  phrase.  The  best  example  occurs  in  the  Stichus, 

(a)  (b)  (a)  (b) 

309  f.  "aperite  atque  adproperaie,  fores  facile  ut  pateant,  removete  mo- 
ram."  Here  the  balance  is  very  noticeable.  In  both  "a"  and  "b"  the  thought 
is  first  expressed  by  a  single  word  and  then  repeated  in  a  longer  phrase. 
A  second  example  will  perhaps  be  sufficient  to  make  this  group  clear.  In 
the  Per.  812  f.  Paegnium  asks  "  viden  ut  tuis  dictis  pareo?  Sed  quin  tu 

(a)  (b)  (a)  (b) 

ineis  contra  item  dictis  servis  /  atque  hoc  quod  tibi  suadeo  facis?"  Here 

the    nicis   dictis    is    repeated    in    quod    tibi   suadeo    while    servis    is    re- 

peated  in  facts.  This  example  is  not  as  good  as  the  first  because  here 
in  "a"  a  pronominal  adjective  and  a  noun  are  balanced  by  a  quod  clause 
while  in  "b"  verb  balances  verb. 

2.  a-b-b-a 

The  second  type  of  repetition  in  which  we  find  stylistic  variation  is 
that  in  which  a  statement  is  made  by  a  speaker  who  then  expresses  a 
different  thought.  After  repeating  this  latter,  he  returns  to  a  repetition 
of  the  first  statement.  The  scheme  here  is  a-b-b-a.  The  groups  into  which 
this  type  may  be  divided  are  in  the  main  similar  to  those  into  which  the 
type  just  treated  was  divided.  Consider  first  examples  in  which  there  is 
a  close  resemblance  between  "a"  and  its  repetition,  and  also  between  "b" 
and  its  repetition.  In  the  five  examples  found  there  is  considerable  varia- 

(a) 
tion.  Take  first  a  very  simple  example  such  as  Most.  7  f.  "abscede  ab  aedi- 

^^)    .         ,,  .  (^) 

bus./abi  rus."  Tranio  repeats  this  in  very  close  form  with  "abi  dierecte, 


44  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

absccdc  ab  ianua."  A  more  complicated  example  is  seen  in  the  Bacc.  358  f. 

(a)  (b) 

where  Chrysalus  asks  " scd  quid  jacturuuist,  quoin  hoc  sencx  resciverit." 

(b) 
He  repeats  this  last  clause  with  " quovi  se  excucurrisse  illuc  frustra  sciverit 
/  nosque  aurum  abusos?"  Here  the  form  remains  the  same  and  the  second 
quom  clause  does  not  really  add  anything  to  the  first  statement  as  it  is 
clear  enou^-h   wiiat  Chrvsalus  means.    He  repeats  the  thought  of  "quid 

(a)       \^      .       ^^      '.         (a) 
jacturumsi  /"  with  "quid  niihi  fiet  posica."  Here  again  the  form  is  re- 
tained and  both  "a"  and  "b"  show  a  close  resemblance  to  their  respective 

(^) 
repetitions.   In  the  same  play  321    f.  Chrysalus  says  " non  edepol  scio ; 

verum   hand  opinor."   After   Nicobulus   asks   "fertne   partem   tertiam!" 

(b)  (a) 

Chrysalus  repeats  "non  hercle  opinor.  verum  verum  nescio."  Here  the 
closeness  is  obvious.  This  example,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  repeti- 
tion is  motivated  by  an  interruption,  is  noticeable  for  the  summary  which 
Chrysalus  adds  in  "  projecto  de  auro  nil  scio  nisi  nescio." 

Another  example  occurs  in  the  Pseu.  510  f.  where  Pseudolus  threatens 

»    ^^^      .  .      ^^) 

"dabis./iam  dtco  ut  a  me  caveas."  After  an  interruption  from  Simo,  he  re- 
peats, reversing  the  order  of  the  first  statements  but  keeping  the  repeti- 

tions  close  to  the  original,  " praedico  tit  caveas.  /  dico,  inquam,  ut  caveas. 

(a)  ' 

cave./  em  istis  inihi  tu  hodie  manibus  argienUim  dabis."  The  repetition 
is  somewhat  fuller  than  the  original  statement. 

The  second  group,  of  which  there  are  three  cases,  is  characterized  by 
the  fact  that  the  repetition  of  "a"  shows  a  close  resemblance  to  the  origi- 
nal statement  while  the  repetition  of  "b"  is  quite  different  from  the  origi- 

(a) 

nal  statement.  In  the  Men.  756  f.  the  old  man  complains  "nam  pernicitas 

(b)  (b)  (a) 

deserit:  consitus  sum  /  senectute,  onustum  gero  corpus,  vires  /  reliquere." 
Here  there  is  a  close  resemblance  between  pernicitas  deserit  and  vires 
reliquere  while  the  repetition  onustum  gero  corpus  repeats  the  thought 
of,  but  differs  considerably  in  phraseologv  from  consitus  sum  senectute. 

The  same  is  true  of  Epi.  590  " tua  istaec  culpast,  non  mea  /.  negat  haec 
filiain  me  suam  esse."  This  last  thought  is  repeated  in  a  different  form  in 

(b) 
"non  ergo  haec  mater  mea  est"  while  the  first  expression  is  repeated  in 

(a) 
closer  form  in  "  postremo  haec  mea  culpa  non  est." 

An  attempt  was  made  to  find  some  examples  in  which  there  was  a  close 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  45 

resemblance  between  "b"  and  its  repetition  and  a  corresponding  diversity 
in  the  expression  of  "a"  and  its  repetition.  But  the  only  two  examples 
which  might,  by  considerable  stretch  of  the  imagination,  be  said  to 
possess  this  characteristic  are  not  very  good.  They  will  be  cited  for  what 
thev  are  worth.  In  the  Stichus  508  f.  Pamphilippus  replies  to  Antipho's 

(a) (b) 

good  wishes  "satis  aps  te  accipiavi,  nisi  vidcam  inilii  tc  amicuni  esse,  Anti- 

(^)  .  ^^)      .    . 

pho  /.  nunc  quia  te  amicum  mi  experiar  esse  credetur  tibi."  All  that  can 

be  said  of  this  example  is  that  the  repetition  of  the  first  expression  is  not 

as  close  as  the  repetition  of  the  second  expression,  though  the  repetition 

of  the  latter  is  not  very  close.  The  second  example  is  perhaps  even  weaker. 

In  the  Bacc.  121  f.  Lydus  rebukes  Pistoclerus  "an  non  putasti  esse  uin- 

qiiani.  O  Lyde  es  barbarus  ...   is  stultior  es  barbaro  poticio.  qui  tantiis 

(^)     .  .  • 

natu  deorum  nescis  noniina."  The  same  comment  which  was  made  in  re- 
gard to  the  first  example  may  be  made  here. 

A  fourth  group  shows  a  change  in  construction  in  the  repetition  of 
both  "a"  and  '"b"  from  that  of  the  original  statement.  There  are  three 
examples  of  this  group,  the  best  of  which  occurs  in  the  As.  249.  Libanus 

(^).  .     .  (^) 

soliloquizes  "nunc  te  meliust  expergiscier  /  atque  argento  comparando 

fingere  fallaciaui."  He  repeats  this  last  statement  with  considerable  vari- 

.        _ (b) 

ation  in  "igitur  inveniendo  argento  ut  fingeres  fallaciam."  Then  he  re- 

peats  his  first  statement,  varying  the  form  of  this  also  "quin  tu  aps  te 
socordiani  ovinem  reice  et  segnitiem  amove."  In  the  True.  556  f.  Cyamus 

(a) 
cries  "qui  bona  sua  pro  stercore  habet,  foras  iubet  ferri.  metuit  /  publi- 

(b) 
cos:   viundissinius  fit."  He  repeats  this  last  changing  the  form  "puras 

esse  sibi  volt  aedis."  Then  he  repeats  the  foras  iubet  ferri  with  "douii 
quidquid  habeat  cicitur,  llw." 

There  are  two  examples  in  which  there  is  a  balance  between  "a"  and 
its  repetition  and  also  between  "b"  and  its  repetition.  In  the  Pseu.  667 

(a)  (b) 

Pseudolus  cries,  "  Di  immortales  conservavit  me  illic  homo  adventu  suo." 

(b)  (a) 

In  the  next  sentence  suo  viatico  repeats  the  last  phrase  while  redduxit 
repeats  the  thought  of  conservavit.  In  the  Mer.  571  f.  occurs  "meum 
(a)  (b)  ^^  ^^   (b)  (a) 

animum  gestas"  then  " scis  quid  acturus  siein."  Here  the  balance  is  clear. 


46  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

These  differ  from  other  examples  in  that  here  verb  is  balanced  by  \'erb, 
and  phrase  by  phrase. 

A  very  neat  example  of  this  type  ot  repetition  is  found  in  the  Amph. 

648  f.   Alcumena  soliliquizes  "virtus  praemiiim  est  optuviuni:  /  virtus 

ovniibus  rebus  aiiteit  profecto."  She  repeats  with  "virtus  ovinia  in  sese 

(a) 
hahet,  /  omnia  adsunt  bona  quein  penest  virtus."  In  the  repetition  of  these 
two  thoughts,  which  are  really  only  two  ways  of  regarding  virtus,  virtus 
omnia  in  sese  habet  keeps  more  clearly  to  the  construction  of  its  original 
statement  than  does  omnia  adsunt  bona  quern  penest  virtus.  Here  the 
thought  passes  from  virtus  to  the  person  who  possesses  virtus. 

3.  a-b-a 

The  third  type  in  which  we  find  stylistic  variation  is  not  as  satisf actor}- 
as  the  two  just  treated.  In  this  type  a  speaker  makes  a  statement,  then  in 
the  next  sentence  changes  the  thought,  finally  returning  to  the  first  state- 
'ment.  The  scheme  here  might  be  written  a-b-a.  This  group  differs  from 
the  class  of  "equivalent  repetitions"  in  that  here  there  is  no  interruption 
from  another  speaker  as  was  the  case  in  the  earlier  class.  Here  the  speaker 
drops  his  first  thought  but  does  not  repeat  it  after  an  interruption  from 
another  speaker  but  merely  returns  to  it  after  a  digression.  Eighteen  ex- 
amples of  this  type  were  found.  These  seemed  to  fall  most  naturally  into 
two  groups.  There  are  eight  which  are  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the 
form  and  wording  of  "a"  was  similar  while  in  the  other  ten  the  form 
and  wording  of  the  repetition  was  not  close  to  that  of  the  original 
statement.  In  the  Cap.  487  Ergasilus  soliloquizes  "  abeo  ab  illis,  postquam 
video  me  sic  ludificarier."  Then  he  drops  this  thought  of  deception  but 
returns  to  it  in  "quoniam  me  ibi  video  ludificarier."  Here  the  repetition 
is  close  as  is  the  case  in  the  As.  720  f.  where  Leonida  urges  Argyrippus 
"opta  id  quod  ut  contingat  tibi  vis."  Then  after  an  interruption,  before 
repeating  this  statement  he  says  "ad  me  adi  vicissim  atque  experire," 
repeating  his  first  command  in  "exopta  id  quod  vis  maxume  tibi  evenire." 
Here  again  the  repetition  is  close. 

Those  examples  of  this  type  in  which  the  repetition  is  not  so  close  are 
much  more  interesting.  The  three  best  examples  occur  in  the  Trinummus. 
In  the  lines  320  ff.  Philto  says  "is  probus  est  quem  paenitet  quam  probus 
sit  et  frugi  bonae."  He  then  drops  this  thought  but  repeats  it  again  in 
"qui  ipsus  se  contemnit,  in  eost  indoles  industriae."  Here  the  form  and 
wording  is  not  close  although  there  is  a  certain  balance  between  the  origi- 
nal statement  and  the  repetition.  In  line  397  f.  Philto  exclaims  "miser  ex 
animo  fit,  factius  nihilo  facit."  He  goes  back  to  the  first  statement  and  re- 
peats it  in  considerably  different  form,  "Suae  senectuti  is  acriorem 
hiemeni  parat."  The  third  example  occurs  at  line  i  r  10  f.  where  Stasimus 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  47 

reflects  "hie  meo  ero  amicus  solus  firmus  restitit."  He  repeats  this  with 
"  sed  hie  unus,  ut  ego  suspicor,  servat  fidem."  But  between  these  two  sen- 
tences he  has  said  "  ncquc  deniutavit  animuin  dc  fin/ia  fide."  This  may  be 
considered  as  a  negative  repetition  of  the  first  statement.  But  in  spite  of 
that  the  example  seems  to  fulfil  the  characteristic  of  the  class  since  the 
negative  expression  may  be  said  to  express  the  reverse  of  the  first  state- 
ment and  for  that  reason  the  last  sentence  returns  to  the  first  expression. 
On  the  whole  this  type  does  not  offer  as  good  examples  as  the  two  previ- 
ous types.  And  on  closer  observation  it  may  be  seen  that  many  of  the  ex- 
amples might  be  classed  under  other  types  already  discussed  in  the  first 
part  of  the  paper. 

4.  Play  on  Words 

The  fourth  and  last  type  to  be  considered  in  discussing  the  stylistic 
variations  of  repetitions  in  Plautus  is  that  in  which  we  find  a  play  on 
words.  Here  the  repetition  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  thought  or  image 
brought  before  us  by  a  single  word  is  repeated  by  the  occurrence  of  that 
same  word  or  of  a  word  connected  in  root  with  it.  There  is  considerable 
gradation  in  the  strength  of  the  repetition.  The  group  is  not  important 
enough  for  very  detailed  analysis  and  only  a  few  examples  will  be  pointed 
out  to  show  the  variation  found.  In  the  Most.  204  f.  Philematium  rebukes 
Scapha  "solain  ille  me  soli  sibi  suo  sumptu  liberavit:/  illi  me  soli  censeo 
esse  oportere  opsequentem."  Here  the  same  adjective  is  repeated.  The 
same  is  true  of  Pseu.  27  f.  where  Calidorus  asks  "cur  inclementer  dicis 
lepidis  litteris,  lepidis  tabellis  lepida  conscriptis  manu."  Here,  however, 
the  adjective  is  applied  to  three  different  objects.  In  the  Trin.  972  the 
sycophant  rebukes  Charmides  with  "  abi  sis,  nugator:  nugari  nugatori 
postulas."  Here  the  repetition  lies  in  a  verb  which  repeats  the  thought  as 
first  expressed  by  a  noun.  In  the  Per.  7  occurs  "qui  ero  suo  servire  volt 
bene  servos  servitutem."  Here  we  find  a  verb  and  two  nouns  from  the 
same  stem,  expressing  the  same  thought.  These  examples  are  sufificient  to 
show  that  there  is  some  variation  in  the  examples.  They  also  show  that 
the  group  is  not  very  important. 


IV.   DOUBLE   REPETITIONS 

IN  all  the  examples  so  far  considered,  both  in  the  exposition  and  discus- 
sion of  the  various  classes  of  repetition  in  Plautus  and  also  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  st)distic  variations  of  repetitions  found  in  Plautus  a  thought 
was  repeated  only  once.  In  most  cases  the  desire  of  the  speaker  was  to 
vary  the  expression  of  his  thought  but  that  desire  for  variety  in  the  ex- 
pression did  not  overshadow  the  other  desire,  that  of  impressing  his 
thought  the  more  strongly  upon  the  listener  by  repeating  it.  The  next 
type  of  repetition  to  be  considered  shows  a  distinct  difference  in  these  two 
points  from  all  the  types  so  far  discussed.  This  type  is  characterized,  in 
the  first  place,  by  the  fact  that  a  statement  is  made  which  is  then  repeated 
not  once  but  twice:  secondly,  in  this  type  the  desire  in  the  speaker's  mind 
may  be  to  impress  his  statement  on  the  listener's  mind  by  repeating  it 
twice  but  this  desire,  in  contrast  with  the  case  in  the  other  types,  is  over- 
shadowed by  the  desire  for  variety.  In  repeating  his  thought  once,  a 
speaker  may  feel  that  he  can  express  his  idea  more  aptly  with  some  varia- 
tion but  in  most  of  the  examples  so  far  considered,  it  cannot  be  said  defi- 
nitely that  the  speaker  had  in  equal  degree,  both  the  desire  for  variety 
and  also  the  desire  of  impressing  the  listeners.  In  the  examples  now  to  be 
considered  there  seems  to  be  a  combination  of  the  desire  to  vary  the  ex- 
pression and  the  desire  to  enforce  his  thought  on  the  listener.  Considerable 
variety  is  shown  in  this  class  of  repetitions — from  those  in  which  all  three 
statements  are  very  much  alike  to  those  which  show  a  distinct  change  in 
the  form  and  wording  of  repetitions,  from  those  which  show  repetition  of 
single  words  to  those  which  show  repetition  of  thoughts  important  for  the 
plot  of  the  play  and  especially  for  the  portrayal  of  the  character  who  ex- 
presses them. 

The  first  group  into  which  these  double  repetitions  may  be  divided  is 
that  in  which  the  examples  show  a  close  similarity  in  all  three  expressions 
of  the  same  thought.  There  are  eighteen  examples  of  this  group  in 
Plautus.  In  the  Most.  1033  f-  Theopropides  is  highly  indignant  at  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  been  tricked  by  Tranio  and  cries  "  deludificatust 
me  hodie  indignis  modis."  Simo  asks  "quid  tu  ais  !"  to  which  Theopropides 
answers  "deludificatust  me  hodie  in  perpetuom  modum"  and  ends  the 
scene  by  repeating  again  "  Quis  med  exemplis  hodie  eludificatus  est."  In 
these  three  expressions,  there  is  very  little  variation.  Theopropides  is 
indignant  at  being  made  a  fool  of  and  harps  upon  this  thought  not  so 
much  to  impress  it  upon  the  listener  as  to  give  vent  to  his  feelings  and 
finally  winds  up  by  leaving  the  stage  with  the  other  old  man  to  tell  him 
how  Tranio  has  tricked  him.  In  the  True.  613  Stratophanes  threatens 
Cyamus  "iam  hercle  ego  te  hie  hac  offatim  conficiam."  Then  in  626  he  re- 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  49 

peats  "iam  ego  te  hie  offatim  conficiam;  offatim  occidi  optumum  est." 
Here  the  reason  for  the  repetition  is  obvious.  Stratophanes  is  worked  up 
and  threatens  Cyamus — not  once  but  thrice — to  impress  his  threat  upon 
Cyamus  as  well  as  to  give  vent  to  his  own  anger.  In  the  As.  204  ff.  Ar- 
gyrippus  upbraids  Cleareta  "  aliam  nunc  mi  orationem  despoliato  prae- 
dicas,  /  longe  aliam  inquam,  linguam  praebes,  nunc  atque  olim  quom 
dabam,  /  aliam  atque  olim  quom  inliciebas  me  ad  te  blande  ac  benedice." 
He  then  goes  on  to  explain  what  he  means  by  the  change  in  the  attitude 
of  Cleareta  towards  him. 

The  next  group  in  this  type  is  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  two 
repetitions  are  less  connected  with  the  original  statement  than  was  the 
case  in  the  first  examples  given.  There  are  twenty-one  (21)  such  ex- 
amples in  Plautus.  In  this  group  there  are  three  distinct  kinds  of  ex- 
amples. There  are  first  those  examples  in  which  the  form  and  construc- 
tion are  similar  in  all  three  statements.  In  the  Capt.  993  Hegio  laments 
"eo  miser  sum  quia  male  illi  feci  si  gnatus  meust."  He  repeats  with  "eheu 
quom  ego  plus  minusque  feci  quam  me  aequom  fuit"  and  then  again  in 
"quod  male  feci,  crucior."  Here  he  gives  only  one  reason  why  he  is 
wretched  but  he  gives  it  three  times  with  the  same  form  and  construction. 
In  the  Cas.  817  f.  Pardalisca  bids  Cleustrata  "sensim  super  attolle  limen 
pedes,  nova  nupta ;  /  sospes  iter  incipe  hoc,  uti  viro  tuo  /  semper  sis 
superstes."  He  repeats  this  last  expression,  keeping  the  ut  clause 
"tuaque  ut  potior  pollentia  sit  vincasque  virum  victrixque  sies."  Then 
this  occurs  again  in  "tua  vox  superet  tuomque  imperium."  In  the  first 
repetition  the  thought  really  occurs  three  times  so  that  here  we  find 
double  repetition  within  repetition.  A  third  example  occurs  in  the  Rudens 
■691  f.  where  Tranio  tries  to  reassure  the  girls  "sedete  hie  modo,  ego  hinc 
vos  tamen  tutabor,  aram  habete  hanc  /  vobis  pro  castris."  He  repeats 
with  "moenia  hinc  ego  vos  defensabo"  and  again,  making  the  expression 
somewhat  fuller  but  really  adding  nothing  to  the  thought  "  praesidio 
Veneris  malitiae  lenonis  contra  incedam."  The  greater  number  of  the  ex- 
amples of  this  group  ( eleven ( 11)  in  all)  do  not  show  such  a  close  simi- 
larity in  the  form  of  all  three  expressions.  Here  the  similarity  lies  be- 
tween the  original  statement  and  one  repetition  or  between  the  two  repe- 
titions themselves.  In  the  examples  it  was  found  that  a  speaker  is  more 
likely  in  repeating  a  statement  twice  to  retain  the  form  of  the  original 
statement  in  the  first  repetition  and  change  in  the  second  repetition  than 
to  do  either  of  the  other  two  things — to  make  the  second  repetition  like  in 
form  to  the  original  statement  or  to  make  the  form  of  the  two  repetitions 
like  to  each  other  but  different  from  that  of  the  original  statement.  In  the 
Trin.  83  ff.  Callicles  explains  to  Megaronides  "nam  nunc  ego  si  te  sur- 
rupuisse  suspicer  /  loA'i  coronam  de  capite  ex  Capitolio  /  quod  in  colu- 
mine  astat  summo."  He  repeats  the  thought  of  the  si  clause,  keeping 
the  same  conditional  form  "si  id  non  feceris  atque  id  tamen  mihi  lubeat 
suspicarier ,"  repeating  a  second  time  but  changing  the  form  in  "qui  tu  id 
prohibere  me  potes  ne  suspicer?"  A  better  example  occurs  in  the  Bacc. 


50  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

1099  f.  where  Philoxemus  complains  "hoc,  hoc  est  quod  cor  peracescit. 
hoc  est  dcmum  quod  percrucior."  This  is  an  example  of  equivalent  repe- 
tition. He  then  explains  with  "me  hoc  aetatis  ludificari,"  repeating  this 
with  the  same  form  in  "  immo  edepol  sic  ludos  factum  /  cano  capite."  He 
repeats  again  but  in  a  different  form  with  "atque  alba  barba  miserum 
me  auro  esse  emunctum."  A  third  example  of  this  same  class  is  in  the  M. 
G.  944  f.  where  Periplectomenus  bids  the  girls  "abeamus  ergo  intro,  haec 
uti  meditemur  cogitate"  repeating  this  in  "  ut  accurate  et  commode  hoc 
quod  agendumst  exsequamur,"  but  changing  the  form  in  the  second  rep- 
etition "ne  quid  ubi  miles  venerit,  titubetur." 

In  the  Stichus  39  ff.  there  is  a  similarity  in  form  between  the  original 
statement  and  the  second  repetition.  Pamphila  explains  to  Paneg}-ris 
"quia  pol  meo  animo  omnis  sapientis  /  suom  officium  aequom  est  colere 
et  facere."  She  repeats  this  in  "moneo  ut  tuom  memineris  officium"  and 
then  again,  going  back  to  the  form  of  the  original  statement  in  "omnibus 
obnixe  o})ibus  /  nostrum  officium  meminisse  decet."  In  the  Rudens  458 
ff.  the  form  of  the  two  repetitions  is  similar.  Sceparnio  reflects  "  Pro  di 
inmortales !  in  aqua  numquam  credidi  /  voluptatem  inesse  tantam."  He 
repeats  this  twice  in  "ut  banc  traxi  lubens"  and  "ut  sine  labore  banc  ex- 
traxi"  with  the  same  form  in  the  two  repetitions  but  different  from  the 
form  of  the  original  statement. 

There  are  a  few  examples  in  this  group  (five  in  all)  in  which  the  form 
and  construction  differ  in  all  three  expressions  of  the  same  thought.  The 
best  example  of  this  occurs  in  the  Ep.  666  f.  where  Periphanes  upbraids 
Epidicus  and  asks  Apoecides  "satine  illic  homo  ludibrio  nos  vetulos  de- 
crepitos  duos  habet."  After  an  interruption  he  repeats  with  different  form 
(671 )  "quot  illic  homo  hodie  me  exemplis  ludificatust  atque  te"  and  still 
again  with  a  different  form  in  "  ut  illic  autem  exenteravit  mihi  opes 
argentarias !"  Another  example  is  in  the  Stichus  70  f.  Panegyris  advises 
Pamphila  "  exorando,  hand  advorsando  sumendam  operam  censeo."  She 
repeats  with  different  form  in  "advorsari  sine  dedecore  et  scelere  summo 
hau  possumus."  and  again  in  "consilium  dabo,  verum  ut  exoremus." 

In  the  next  group  the  chief  characteristic  is  that  the  original  statement 
is  a  short  one  and  the  repetitions  are  also  short,  preserving  a  sort  of  bal- 
ance with  the  first.  Trin.  705  f.  will  show  what  is  meant  by  this  group. 
Here  Stasimus  applauds  Lysiteles  "facile  palmam  habes :  hie  victust, 
vicit  tua  comoedia."  This  shows  three  ways  of  expressing  the  same 
thought — each  in  a  short  phrase  with  a  certain  balance.  The  same  is  true 
of  Cas.  509  f.  where  Chalinus  boasts  "nostra  omnis  lis  est — nostro  omine 
it  dies;  iam  victi  vicimus."  Here  again  the  thought  is  expressed  in  three 
short  phrases  with  a  clearer  balance  than  was  the  case  in  the  first  example. 
There  were  found  about  thirty-five  cases  of  this  group  in  Plautus.  In 
about  ten  the  phrasing  of  the  three  statements  was  close,  in  the  others 
there  was  some  variation.  In  the  Rudens  702  ff.  Tranio  assures  the 
priestess  "Venus,  aequom  has  petere  intellego  :  decet  aps  te  id  impetrari  / 
ignoscere  his  te  convenit."  Here  in  the  three  expressions  there  is  a  cer- 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  51 

tain  amount  of  similarity.  The  same  is  true  of  Poe.  1 187  f.  where  Hanno 
prays  "Juppiter  qui  genus  colis  alisque  hominum,  /  per  quem  vivjmus 
vitalem  aevom,  /  quem  penes  spes  vitae  sunt  hominum  omnium."  In  the 
Pseu.  423  ff.  the  phraseology  is  quite  different  in  the  three  statements. 
Pseudolus  says  "occisa  est  haec  res,  haeret  hoc  negotium"  and  then  for  the 
third  time  "ibi  nunc  oppido  opsaeptast  via."  The  last  is  considerably  dif- 
*ferent  in  form  from  the  first  two.  In  the  Most.  1 108  f.  Theopropides  up- 
braids Tranio  "dedisti  verba."  The  slave  asks  "qui  tandem f"  Theopro- 
pides repeats  in  very  different  form  "probe  med  emunxti."  He  elaborates 
this  in  "  immo  etiam  cerebrum  quoque  omne  e  capite  emunxti  meo."  A 
clearer  case  of  balance  is  seen  in  Cas.  875  f.  where  Olympio  reflects 
"neque  quo  fugiam  neque  ubi  lateam  neque  hoc  dedecus  quo  modo  celem." 
He  offers  another  example  a  few  lines  later  in  "ita  nunc  pudeo  atque  ita 
nunc  paveo  atque  ita  in  ridiculo  sumus  ambo." 

There  are  eight  examples  in  which  the  original  statement  takes  the 
form  of  a  question,  which  form  is  retained  in  the  two  repetitions.  In  the 
Mer.  652  f.  Eutychus  asks  "quis  modus  tibi  exsilio  tandem  eveniet,  qui 
finis  fugaef"  Then  a  third  time  in  "quae  patria  aut  domus  tibi  stabilis 
esse  poterit."  Another  example  is  in  the  Pseu.  1080  where  Simo  asks 
"quid  ait?  quid  narrat?  quaeso  quid  dicit  tibi?" 

Another  group  of  these  double  repetitions  is  that  in  which  a  thought 
is  first  expressed  in  a  single  word — adjective  or  noun — and  is  then  ex- 
panded into  a  clause.  In  the  Rudens  1027  Gripus  tries  to  get  rid  of 
Trachalio  "sine  me  hinc  abire,  tu  abi  tacitus  tuam  viam."  He  repeats,  in 
more  detailed  form,  the  thought  of  "tacitus" — first  in  the  negative  "nee 
tu  quoiquam  indicassis"  and  then  in  "tu  taceto."  Another  example  similar 
to  this  occurs  in  the  M.  G.  618  ff.  where  Pleusicles  explains  his  distress  to 
Periplectomenus  "me  tibi  istuc  aetatis  homini  facinora  puerilia/obicere." 
He  expands  the  thought  of  the  adjective  first  negatively  in  "neque  te 
decora  neque  tuis  virtutibus"  and  then  affirmatively  in  "quae  istaec 
aetas  fugere  facta  magis  quam  sectari  solet."  In  the  Pseu.  773  the  Puer 
soliloquizes  "neque  ego  amatorem  mi  invenire  ullum  queo  /  qui  amet  me, 
ut  curer  tandem  nitidiuscule."  Here  the  thought,  as  first  expressed  in  the 
noun  "amatorem"  is  repeated  in  the  qui  and  ut  clauses.  In  the  Cas.  313  f. 
the  example  is  a  little  different  from  those  just  quoted  but  resembles  them 
enough  to  be  classed  with  them.  Olympio  threatens  Cleustrata  "quid  tu 
me  tua,  era,  libertate  territas?  /  qui  si  tu  nolis  filiusque  etiam  tuos,  /  vobis 
invitus  atque  amborum  ingratiis  /  una  libella  liber  possum  fieri."  Here 
the  thought  is  first  expressed  in  a  clause  and  then  repeated  in  two  short 
adjectival  phrases.  This  example  is  then  classified  with  the  others  because 
it  shows  the  reverse  characteristic  of  the  previous  in  which  the  thought 
was  first  expressed  in  a  single  word  and  then  repeated  in  a  clause.  There 
are  twelve  (12)  examples  of  this  class  in  Plautus. 

A  group  somewhat  similar  to  the  last  example  is  that  in  which  a 
thought  is  expressed  three  times  in  adjectival  phrases.  There  are  about 
five  such  examples  in  Plautus.  In  the  Pseu.  1253  f.  Pseudolus  soliloquizes 


52  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

"ita  victu  excurato,  ita  magnis  munditiis  divis  dignis  /  itaque  in  loco 
festivo  sumus  festive  accepti."  Here  the  thought  of  the  splendid  reception 
is  stated  three  times  in  adjectival  phrases  and  a  fourth  time  in  the  adverb 
festive.  In  the  same  play  759  ff.  we  find  two  examples  of  double  repe- 
tition, the  second  one  belonging  to  this  class.  Pseudolus  says  "quidquid 
incerti  mi  in  animo  prius  aut  ambiguom  fuit,  /  nunc  liquet,  nunc  defaeca- 
tumst  cor  mihi ;  nunc  perviamst."  This  is  an  example  of  short  phrases.  In* 
the  following  lines  he  gives  an  example  of  repetitions  with  adjectival 
phrases,  "omnis  ordine  his  sub  signis  ducam  legiones  meas  /  avi  sinistera, 
auspicio  liquido  atque  ex  sententia."  This  example  is  not  as  good  because 
in  the  second  repetition  ("ex  sententia")  there  is  no  adjective  but  here 
again  the  balance  is  clear.  The  next  example  is  better.  In  the  M.  G.  413  f. 
Philocomasium  repeats  the  same  idea  twice  when  she  speaks  of  the  turbu-- 
lent  sea  "quom  me  in  locis  Neptuniis  templisqne  iurbnlentis  /  servavit, 
saevis  fluctibns  ubi  sum  adflictata  multum." 

In  the  next  group  of  double  repetitions  the  examples  are  characterized 
by  the  fact  that  the  thought  of  an  adjective  is  repeated  twice  in  other  ad- 
jectives. In  the  Rudens  257  f.  Palaestra  characterizes  herself  and  Am- 
pelisca  as  "miseras,  inopes,  aerumnosas."  In  the  greater  number  of  ex- 
amples the  second  repetition  has  a  noun  combined  with  an  adjective  but 
this  noun  really  adds  nothing  to  the  thought  of  the  adjective  with  which 
it  is  combined  as  in  the  Poe.  130  "dubias  egenas,  inopiosas  consili"  or  M. 
G.  1369  "dicant  te  mendacem  nee  verum  esse,  fide  nulla  esse  te."  Similar 
to  these  are  such  examples  as  Men.  972  where  Messenio  reflects  "  recorde- 
tur  id,  qui  nihili  sunt,  quid  eis  preti  /  detur  ab  suis  eris,  /  ignavis,  impro- 
bis  viris."  In  the  Pseu.  1142  we  find  "quia  tu  te  ipsns  coram  praesens 
praesentem  vides." 

There  are  about  ten  examples  in  which  a  thought  is  expressed  in  three 
nouns.  In  the  Trin.  141  ff.  occurs  a  very  good  example.  Callicles  replies 
to  Megaronides  "  ut  quod  meae  concreditumst  /  taciturnitati  clam,  fide  et 
fiduciae."  Having  expressed  the  same  thought  in  three  different  nouns  he 
varies  it  in  "ne  enuntiarem  quoiquam  neu  facerem  palam"  which  adds 
nothing  to  the  thought.  A  simpler  example  is  Pseu.  672  if.  "hie  doli,  hie 
fallaciae  omnes,  hie  sunt  sycophantiae"  or  the  Trin.  333  f.  where  Ly- 
siteles  says  "  per  comitatem  edepol,  pater,  /  praeterea  aliquantum  animi 
causa  in  deliciis  disperdidit."  Here  the  balance  is  closer  because  each 
noun  is  governed  by  a  preposition. 

The  greater  number  of  repetitions  in  which  a  thought  is  first  expressed 
in  a  single  word  and  then  repeated  in  single  words  occurs  in  the  case  of 
verbs.  This  is  the  most  natural  form  of  repetition,  to  change  one  verb  for 
another  verb  which  expresses  the  same  idea.  There  are  about  thirty-three 
such  examples  in  Plautus.  The  only  variation  shown  here  is  that  some- 
times the  third  verb  is  strengthened  by  an  adverb  or  a  phrase  which,  how- 
ever, adds  nothing  to  the  thought.  Only  a  few  examples  need  be  men- 
tioned as  this  group  is  clear  without  any  explanation.  In  the  Per.  257 
Sagaristio  soliloquizes  "quod  ego  non  magis  somniabam  neque  opinabar 


REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS  53 

neque  censebam."  A  similar  example  occurs  in  the  Trin.  263  where 
Lysiteles  reflects  "mille  modis,  amor,  ignorandumst,  procul  abhibendust 
atque  apstandust."  As  in  the  first  example  the  same  form  of  the  verb  is 
retained.  In  the  Most.  1060  f.  Tranio  decides  how  he  is  to  treat  Theopro- 
pides  "praeoccupabo  atque  anteveniam  et  foedus  /  feriam."  In  this  ex- 
ample the  "foedus  feriam"  is  practically  equal  to  a  single  verb  but  in  the 
Per.  53  f.  "servo  atque  optineo  et  magna  cum  cura  colo"  in  the  second 
repetition  the  adjectival  phrase  emphasizes  and  strengthens  the  idea  con- 
tained in  the  three  verbs. 

There  were  found  in  this  group  of  double  repetition  about  sixteen  ex- 
amples in  which  the  thought  was  expressed  and  then  repeated  in 
imperatives.  In  the  Cis.  197  f.  Auxilium  advises  the  audience  "vincite 
virtute  vera"  then  "perdite  perduellis,  parite  laudem  et  lauream."  Simi- 
lar to  this  is  Pseu.  152  f.  "  hoc  animum  advortite,  hue  adhibete  auris  quae 
ego  loquor quae  loquor  advortite  nunciam."  Often  one  of  the  repe- 
titions is  not  an  imperative  but  contains  the  idea  of  one  as  in  the  Poe.  1035 
f.  Agorastocles  advises  Milphio  "maledicta  hinc  aufer,  linguam  compes- 
cas  face"  and  then  again  in  "maledicere  huic  temperabis,  si  sapis." 
Here  the  second  repetition  is  not  an  imperative  but  yet  has  the  force  of 
one.  There  may  of  course  be  a  negative  idea  in  one  of  three  statements  as 
in  the  Most.  74  f.  where  Tranio  abuses  Grumio  "  molestus  ne  sis  nunciam, 
i  rus,  te  amove." 

In  most  of  the  examples  a  thought  was  expressed  affirmatively  twice 
and  once  negatively  if  a  negative  appears  at  all  but  about  ten  examples 
were  found  in  which  a  thought  was  expressed  negatively  three  times.  In 
the  Most.  450  f.  Theopropides  rebukes  Tranio  because  there  isn't  any 
sign  of  life  about  the  house.  "  Natus  nemo  in  aedibus  /  servat  neque  qui 
recludat  neque  qui  respondeat."  In  the  Trin.  227  f.  Lysiteles  soliloquizes 
"sed  hoc  non  liquet  nee  satis  cogitatumst"  and  then  again  a  few  lines 
later  (233)  "  de  hac  re  mihi  satis  hau  liquet."  In  the  Rudens  940  fif.  Gri- 
pus  shows  his  suspicion  of  Trachalio  "nil  habeo,  adulescens,  piscium,  ne 
tu  mihi  esse  postules ;  /  non  vides  referre  me  uvidum  retem  sine  squamoso 
pecu!"  The  "ne  tu  mihi  esse  postules"  at  first  glance  may  not  seem  to  be 
a  repetition  of  the  "nil  habeo  piscium"  but  in  actual  fact  all  such  phrases 
in  which  a  prohibition  follows  a  negative  statement  are  merely  repetitions 
of  that  negative  statement. 

Before  closing  the  discussion  of  these  double  repetitions,  attention  may 
be  called  to  an  example  of  a  more  complicated  repetition  in  the  Stichus 
48  f.  where  Panegyris  says  to  Pamphila  "nolo  ego,  soror,  me  credi  esse 
immemorem  viri"  repeating  this  in  "neque  ille  eos  honores  mihi  quos 
habuit  perdidit."  Then  she  says  "et  me  quidem  haec  condicio  nunc  non 
paenitet"  repeating  this  in  "neque  est  cur  studeam  has  nuptias  mu- 
tarier."  She  passes  to  a  third  thought  in  "verum  postremo  in  patris 
potestate  est  situm"  which  she  repeats  in  "  faciendum  id  vobis  quod  paren- 
tes  imperant."  She  has  made  three  statements  each  of  which  she  repeats. 

The  number  and  character  of  the  examples  of   "double   repetition" 


54  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

found  in  Plautus  show  clearly  enough,  on  being  compared  with  the  ex- 
amples discussed  in  the  first  part  of  the  paper  that  a  speaker  is  not  so  apt 
to  repeat  his  thought  twice  as  he  is  to  be  satisfied  with  varying  the  origi- 
nal expression  in  a  single  repetition. 


V.  CONCLUSION 

IN  conclusion  it  may  be  well  to  sum  up  the  results  of  this  investigation 
although  these  were  perhaps  made  sufficiently  clear  in  the  introduction 
and  in  the  discussion  which  followed.  It  has  been  found  that  repetitions 
of  thought  in  Plautus  (of  which  there  were  about  twelve  hundred  ( 1200) 
clear  examples  and  a  few  hundred  not  so  clear)  had  been  so  expressed 
that  they  could  be  divided  naturally  into  the  five  classes  discussed  in  the 
first  part  of  the  paper.  By  far  the  greater  number  were  classified  as 
"equivalent  repetitions"  in  which  the  repetition  was  more  or  less  exact, 
and  was  made  either  merely  for  iteration  or  for  the  purpose  of  defining 
more  clearly  the  original  statement.  In  these  repetitions  a  further  dis- 
tinction was  drawn  between  those  examples  in  which  the  repetition  was 
more  or  less  motivated  or  caused  by  an  interruption  from  another  speaker 
and  those  in  which  there  was  no  interruption. 

The  second  type  of  repetition  was  that  in  which  the  original  expression 
was  general  in  its  character.  This  general  statement  was  then  either  ana- 
lyzed into  its  various  details  or  made  more  specific  or  in  case  it  was  a 
proverb  was  given  a  particular  application. 

The  third  type  was  that  in  which  the  original  statement,  particular  in 
its  nature,  was  made  general  in  the  repetition. 

The  fourth  type  was  characterized  by  the  fact  that  here  we  found  that 
the  repetition  gave  a  summary  of  the  details  which  form  the  original 
statement. 

The  fifth  type  had  two  divisions.  First,  that  group  in  which,  as  in  most 
writers,  the  thought  was  expressed  first  negatively  and  then  affirmatively. 
This  rhetorical  usage  was  found  to  be  less  common  in  Plautus  than  the 
natural  usage  of  first  making  a  statement  affirmatively  and  then  ex- 
pressing this  same  thought  negatively.  The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
this  .fact  was  simply  that  in  such  a  type  of  literature  as  the  plays  of  Plau- 
tus, the  rhetorical  element,  common  in  Tacitus,  Cicero,  and  other  writers, 
is  subordinated  to  the  natural  way  of  expressing  and  repeating  any 
thought. 

The  second  part  of  the  paper  was  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the 
stylistic  variations  which  were  found  in  use  in  Plautus.  These  were  first 
that  group  in  the  examples  of  which  a  speaker  expresses  one  thought, 
drops  this  for  another,  returns  to  the  first  and  finally  repeats  the  second. 
In  the  second  group  the  speaker  makes  a  statement,  then  changes  to 
another  thought  which  he  repeats,  finally  returning  to  the  first  statement. 
The  third  group  showed  examples  in  which  a  speaker  makes  a  statement, 
drops  this  thought  for  a  moment  and  then  repeats  it.  Here  there  was  no 
interruption  from  another  speaker  as  was  the  case  in  some  of  the  examples 


S6  REPETITION  OF  THOUGHT  IN  PLAUTUS 

of  "equivalent  repetitions."  The  fourth  group  consisted  of  examples  of 
repetitions  which  show  a  play  on  words.  This  part  of  the  paper  showed 
that  Plautus  often  tried  to  vary  the  repetition  and  the  form  and  order  in 
which  it  was  made  so  as  to  give  some  variety  to  the  expression  and  pre- 
vent the  repetition  from  appearing  too  bald. 

In  the  third  part  of  the  paper  it  was  shown  that  there  were  a  consider- 
able number  of  examples  of  repetition  in  Plautus  in  which  a  statement 
was  repeated  not  once  but  twice.  Here  the  number  and  the  character  of 
the  examples  found  proved  that  it  was  not  very  natural  for  a  speaker  to 
repeat  his  thought  more  than  once.  In  general  it  may  be  stated  that  suf- 
ficient variety  was  found  in  the  examples  of  repetition  in  Plautus  to  show 
that  at  the  bottom  of  most  of  the  examples  there  lay  some  further  motive 
than  the  mere  desire  for  emphasis. 


LOAN  PbRIOD  1    '  " ~ 

HOME  USE 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


fORM  NO.  Doa,  .0.,  'T'r,Zi^''^Z%''''''''' 


®$ 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT,  JAN.  21,4908 


U.C.  BERKELEY  UBRARIE 


coembflsi? 


z 


.--C^ — 1„-»^- V  C^Vt 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


r 


.■  -^^r-smm 


